Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT BILL

Lords amendments agreed to.

ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (HULL) BILL

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (No. 2) BILL

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL

HYTHE, KENT, MARINA BILL

HYTHE MARINA VILLAGE (SOUTHAMPTON)

WAVESCREEN BILL

INTERNATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK BILL

ISLE OF WIGHT BILL

LONDON UNDERGROUND (VICTORIA) BILL

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday.

NEW SOUTHGATE CEMETERY AND CREMATORIUM LIMITED BILL

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

TYNE AND WEAR PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL

Read a Second time, and committed.

WENTWORTH ESTATE BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Global Environment

Mr. Doran: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what responsibility he has for United Kingdom participation in the United Nations environment programme-WBO intergovernmental panel on climate change, as the Minister responsible for basic and long-term strategic research into the global environment.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to improve the co-ordination of United Kingdom research into the global environment.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): Extensive co-ordination of research in the broad area of the global environment already takes place, both domestically and internationally. The research councils are actively engaged and I understand that the Natural Environment Research Council is likely soon to join expert groups of the climate change panel under the United Nations environment programme, for which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment takes lead responsibility.

Mr. Doran: International co-operation is obviously important, but will the Minister tell us what steps his Department takes to encourage co-operation between the various Departments that are responsible for the pollution that is so damaging to the atmosphere and what steps it is taking especially with the Department of Energy in encouraging the various projects necessary to reduce the levels of hydrocarbons that are burning in the power stations?

Mr. Jackson: The implications of the different policies for the environment being pursued in different branches of Government are taken seriously by the Government as a whole and by those Departments. It is not, of course, a matter for the Department of Education and Science in the first instance.

Mr. Griffiths: Does the Minister realise that the co-ordination between various branches of Government on the environment is seen by many as absolutely chaotic? Will the Minister agree to look seriously at the approach taken in the United States, which brings together the relevant agencies to ensure that there is a productive channelling of effort to tackle these problems?

Mr. Jackson: There are many ways in which one can organise research activities in an area as large and complex as that of the environment and environmental policy. One method will have advantages and disadvantages and another will have other strengths and weaknesses. We are dealing with large and complicated questions and one of the problems about having a single co-ordinating body, which might achieve the advantage of more focus, is that there is a disengagement of environmental research from other areas of research. All those matters are being


considered by the advisory committee on science and technology, and the Government look forward to receiving advice from that body in due course.

Dr. Bray: But within the Secretary of State's own responsibilities, is there not a case for a joint directorate involving the research councils directly concerned—the Natural Environment Research Council, the Science and Engineering Research Council, the Agricultural and Food Research Council and the Economic and Social Research Council? Is the Minister aware that there seems to be strong support for such a move among all the research councils? Is he aware that the very importance of these activities and many unfortunate precedents enormously increase the scope for errors in the physical science, the politics and the policies that are actually implemented? Will he buck up his ideas?

Mr. Jackson: I am always happy to try to buck up my ideas in line with the hon. Gentleman's urgings. There is a case for almost any combination of organisational structure in these matters. The case is being examined by the research councils and by ACOST. We look forward to their advice, which we shall consider very seriously.

Teachers (London)

Mr. Boateng: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he proposes to help the new borough education authorities in London to overcome the problems of shortages of qualified teachers in London.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): My right hon. Friend and I are aware of the need to ensure a sufficient supply of teachers in all local education authorities.

Mr. Boateng: Is the Minister aware that one of the main problems in recruiting teachers in inner and outer London—particularly in my own borough of Brent—is the high cost of housing in Greater London? What steps do she and her colleagues intend to take to encourage schemes such as the scheme in my constituency which involves hostels and to encourage equity-sharing to ensure that London gets the teachers it deserves?

Mrs. Rumbold: On the general point about teacher recruitment in London, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has invited the interim advisory committee on teachers' pay and conditions to advise him on measures to tackle the high-cost housing areas, such as inner and outer London, and to consider the London weighting issue when it reports to him. A number of interesting ideas are coming forward from local authorities that have put together packages to retain and recruit teachers in areas where there are problems with housing.

Mr. Harry Greenway: What steps does my hon. Friend's Department propose to take to overcome teacher shortages in the 1990s in key subjects, such as mathematics, physics and the others outlined in the Select Committee last week? Will she note that some local authorities in London are failing to recruit teachers through sheer ineptitude? In Ealing, 44 steps have to be gone through before a teacher can be recruited into a classroom, because the local authority is so obsessed with equal opportunities and similar procedures.

Mrs. Rumbold: I understand my hon. Friend's frustration at the bureaucratic nonsense that some education authorities impose on schools trying to recruit teachers in shortage subjects. I sympathise with my hon. Friend, and I hope that my right hon. Friend's proposal for licensed teachers will go some way to alleviate the problems faced by the teaching profession in that regard. My hon. Friend will be aware of the measures that the Department already has up and running for recruitment in shortage subjects. We are offering bursaries to graduates who enter and remain in shortage subjects—physics, mathematics, CDT and, as announced by my right hon. Friend only last Friday, chemistry—in an attempt to address some of the difficulties.

Mr. Cohen: Is the Minister aware that in my borough of Waltham Forest primary school vacancies are running at 10 per cent. of the teacher establishment? Many worried school governors are asking what the Government propose to do about it. There is a crisis in London and the Government are held to blame for not training enough teachers, for the housing problem, which means that teachers cannot afford housing, and for demoralisation in the teaching force. When can parents in my borough expect their children to have teachers?

Mrs. Rumbold: The fault must lie more with Waltham Forest than in the recruitment of teachers. We have more student entries into primary teaching than we have had for a considerable number of years, so there cannot possibly be any shortage of primary school teachers, although Waltham Forest may well have difficulties in recruiting teachers because of its policies.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: As a former education officer in an outer London borough who had responsibility for recruiting supply staff, may I suggest to my hon. Friend that the quickest way of recruiting more teachers in London and other areas where there are shortages is to allow the market to play a part, first, by introducing differential pay rates for London and other shortage areas as well as in shortage subjects?

Mrs. Rumbold: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who speaks from great experience. I notice the derision from Opposition Members whenever market forces are mentioned in this context. It is very much a matter of whether teachers fancy working in particular authorities because of the opprobium that attends those authorities or whether good teachers prefer to go to authorities which are more stable in their policies and their administration of education generally.

School Places

Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to encourage local education authorities to reduce the number of surplus places in schools; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what proposals he has to encourage local education authorities to reduce the number of surplus places in schools; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. John Butcher): Local education authorities are aware of the high cost of


underused capacity at schools with a substantial proportion of surplus places. It is, therefore, very much in their own financial interests to continue to come forward with proposals to rationalise their school provision where appropriate. The Government's public expenditure plans assume that authorities collectively will achieve the national targets for the removal of surplus places.

Mr. Barnes: What extra help will be made available to local education authorities to deal with surplus capacity when their plans have been frustrated by opting-out procedures exacerbating surplus capacity in local education? In Staveley in my constituency, Staveley Netherthorpe school has opted out, thereby creating problems for two other schools in the area.

Mr. Butcher: The hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood the raison d'être behind the Education Reform Act. The driving force behind decisions on which schools will remain open and which will close will increasingly be parental choice through open enrolment. As for the substantive part of his question, we shall consider each section 12 proposal on its merits. In parallel and together, we shall consider grant-maintained status applications on their merits.

Mrs. Taylor: Will the Minister confirm that it is still the Secretary of State's opinion that opting out should not be used as a lifeline by schools that face closure because of local authority proposals? Will he confirm that the majority of opting-out proposals so far have come from schools that face closure because of local authority reorganisation? How does that fit in with what he has just said about rationalisation and the proper use of resources?

Mr. Butcher: We have said that opting out which will not be used as a bolt hole for schools that are not viable. We have said that many times, and we shall consider each application on its merit. However, there is increasing evidence, and it has been confirmed yet again, that municipal Socialism is a creature which turns vicious whenever its hold on its captive subjects is threatened. We believe in democracy and parental choice. The hon. Lady should look at the behaviour of certain Labour councils when parents try to exercise that democratic process.

Mr. Pawsey: I note my hon. Friend's reply, but does he agree that surplus places take up scarce resources, spending money on empty desks rather than on children? Despite what he has heard from Opposition Members, does he agree that grant-maintained schools represent a cost-effective way of educating children? They are invariably oversubscribed and give parents a valuable yardstick against which they may judge schools in LEAs.

Mr. Butcher: This mini debate has shown yet again that the Labour party is about 15 years out of date. There are something like 620,000 primary places and some 800,000 secondary places surplus to capacity. That represents a cost in premises-related expenditure of something like £240 million a year. There is no incompatibility between grant-maintained schools and the need to tackle that problem.

Mrs. Peacock: Does my hon. Friend agree that not all schools applying to opt out are, as the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) suggests, those due for closure? Heckmondwike grammar school in my constituency is certainly not due for closure; it is due, if the Labour party

gets its own way, to be changed considerably. However, the parents have decided that they do not wish to have those Labour party changes, so they will seek to opt out.

Mr. Butcher: I appreciate that my hon. Friend has had to live alongside some of the worst aspects of that municipal Socialism to which I referred earlier. It is our policy to enhance parental choice, whether through grant-maintained schools or otherwise. We shall safeguard the interests of parents who wish, in a fair and free manner to exercise that choice if they recognise that their school is excellent and worth retaining.

Mr. Straw: Is the Under-Secretary aware that he shows the same ignorance and ineptitude on this subject as he used to show at the Department of Trade and Industry? Is he aware that well over half the schools that have sought to opt out have been in Conservative-controlled areas? If, as he says, opting out is not a bolt hole for schools under threat of closure, why is the Secretary of State's front organisation, the Grant Maintained Schools Trust, actively encouraging any school under the threat of closure to seek to opt out? Do not he and the Secretary of State understand that their opting-out policy is completely paralysing any sensible rationalisation of school provision by local authorities? How can local authorities propose schools for closure when the effect of such a proposal may be that the Secretary of State says that that school shall remain open for ever and outside local education authority control so that the LEA then has to propose for closure schools that it would otherwise have kept open?

Mr. Butcher: We shall be entirely fair and open-minded on grant-maintained status applications, whether they come from Conservative or Labour-controlled LEAs. The hon. Gentleman obviously does not believe in his own arguments and that is why he has had to play the man and not the ball.

Mr. Batiste: When my hon. Friend is rightly encouraging LEAs to reduce surplus places, will he also make it clear to LEAs such as that in Leeds, which rules over a large and diverse area, that there is no reason for political dogma in imposing blanket solutions on diverse local communities, and, in particular, that the Government regard village schools as an important part of village life and rural communities?

Mr. Butcher: My hon. Friend is saying what I have tried to confirm over the past few moments, which is that Conservative Members believe in pluralism while the Opposition believe in incorporatism.

Schools (Leicestershire)

Mr. Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make additional resources available to schools in Leicestershire to pay for defects and repairs that are deemed necessary; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Butcher: The Government's expenditure plans for 1989–90 provide for local authorities as a whole to spend £114 million, or approaching 30 per cent., more in cash on repairing and maintaining their school building stock than was actually spent in 1986–87. That is an increase of 9 per cent. in real terms. The Government distribute rate


support grant to local authorities on the basis of those expenditure plans. However, it is for each authority to decide how to spend the resources available to it.

Mr. Vaz: Is the Minister aware that during the Christmas recess I conducted a survey of the 29 schools in my constituency and 24 of them were found to be in a state of serious disrepair? One was a fire hazard and three were in a dangerous condition. They have had to wait a total of 175 years for decoration and repair. Yesterday, the director of education informed me that it will cost £1 million to effect the repairs needed in my constituency alone. Does the Minister agree that it is a mark of a civilised society to give our children the best possible environment in which to learn and grow? In view of the information that I have kindly given him today, will he reconsider his answer and allocate more resources to the county council?

Mr. Butcher: Leicestershire spends just below the national average on repairs and maintenance per capita in the primary sector and just above the national average per capita in the secondary sector. Overall, we have increased in real terms the allocations for repairs and maintenance, and, indeed, capital expenditure, but it is for LEAs to exercise their choice and mix the money that they receive in grant from the centre with capital receipts to tackle just the problems that the hon. Gentleman describes.

Mr. Ashby: Is the Minister aware that St. Clare's Roman Catholic school in Coalville in my constituency is an excellent school but that it is bursting at the seams? It requires not maintenance but an extension to provide further excellent education for the Roman Catholics in my constituency. Will my hon. Friend see that that money is available for that school?

Mr. Butcher: I am sure that my hon. Friend will not expect me to make a decision on that school at this moment. If he wishes to make more detailed representations to me, I shall be glad to entertain him and, if need be, a delegation.

Inner London Education Authority

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to monitor the impact of the transfer of education responsibilities from the Inner London education authority to inner London boroughs.

Mrs. Rumbold: As a matter of course, the Government evaluate the effectiveness of the policies they introduce. The performance of the inner London councils as LEAs will be monitored through the collection of data on educational and financial performance, and through inspection by HMI.

Mr. Corbyn: Is the Minister aware that many people in inner London are concerned about what will happen when education is transferred to the boroughs? Is she further aware that the long-term predictions by her Department show that education spending in inner London will fall by 30 per cent. in real terms in the first five years of transfer to the boroughs? Will she reconsider those figures and enable proper expenditure on education to take place in inner London to take account of the problems of deprivation, the higher costs of providing education in the

area and, for example, the fact that 50 per cent. of the children in my borough fall within the special needs category? Those needs must be met by central Government. They cannot be met out of local resources.

Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Gentleman should remember that ILEA has overspent, and spent inefficiently, on London's education for years. The authority's abolition provides a new framework within which the boroughs can move to provide more efficient services. That certainly can be done and many outer London boroughs already manage it. The inner London boroughs will have the support of the safety net arrangements for four years from April 1990 and, following that, the new needs assessment will take into account the factors that the hon. Gentleman raised.

Mr. John Marshall: Is my hon. Friend aware that the commissars of the people's republic of Islington have said that when they are responsible for education in the area, it will be based on numeracy and literacy? Does she agree that if ILEA had adopted a similar approach, the case for abolition would have been much less strong? Will she also agree that the record of the London borough of Barnet—where a pupil is three times as likely to leave with two A-levels as in the ILEA—shows that the London boroughs are more than capable of looking after the children's education?

Mrs. Rumbold: The short answer to those questions is yes.

Mr. Fatchett: Does the Minister recall the words used by the Secretary of State when he praised the London boroughs for their efforts to deal with the administrative chaos that was likely to arise as a result of his proposals to abolish ILEA? Those words of praise having been given, will the Minister now guarantee that the London boroughs will be given the necessary resources to provide good-quality education? Or do the words she used in her main answer mean that she is determined to carry out a financial vendetta against the children of inner London and starve them and the boroughs of the resources that they desperately need to have good education and good opportunities?

Mrs. Rumbold: There is absolutely no question of a vendetta against the children in the new inner London education authorities. From the draft development plans that are coming to the Department now and the discussions that are being held with the inner London boroughs, it is clear that the interests of the children are being taken care of. There will be safety netting with the introduction of education as one of the responsibilities of those boroughs and as that is phased out, a key determinant in the boroughs' financial position will be the new needs assessment.

School Governors

Mr. Colin Shepherd: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to review the effectiveness of legislation concerning the appointment of school governors.

Mrs. Rumbold: The reform of governing bodies is a key element in our strategy for raising standards in schools. Our legislation has ensured that governing bodies are now much better balanced and more effective.

Mr. Shepherd: Does my hon. Friend agree that the purpose of the legislation was, among other things, to achieve a broad spectrum of representation on boards of governors? Is she aware, however, that the outcome appears to be a substantial preponderance of teaching profession representatives, who are also parents of pupils at the schools? In the light of the activities of the National Union of Teachers in encouraging its members to become governors wherever possible, does she agree that this could lead to a conflict of interests? Will she therefore keep the matter under close review and take whatever immediate action may be appropriate if it becomes apparent that the interests of pupils are not paramount?

Mrs. Rumbold: Governors, especially parent governors, should be chosen for the values that they bring to the governing body as consumers, not because they have vested interests either politically or professionally in the management of schools. It remains for the parents at each school to decide which candidates to elect, having studied the curriculum vitae of those coming forward.
Perhaps it would help my hon. Friend to know that we are making arrangements for a sample survey of schools to collect information about the number of candidates who have offered themselves for election as teacher and parent governors, the turn-out for elections, the number of candidates from different sectors such as the ethnic minorities, and the balance between the sexes. The survey will also look at the background of parent governors, especially to assist us in ascertaining the business representation of the co-opted governors. That will give us information about the occupational background of all governors.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Is the Minister aware of the dire consequences of her Department's failure to legislate to prevent local authorities from appointing single party state slates of school governors? Has she seen the letter from two parent governors of Charlotte Sharman primary and nursery school, in my constituency, who have been unable to take in a governing body meeting with a quorum since its constitution in September because of the failure to attend of the three ILEA Labour members and the Southwark Labour member? Although opposition members have been willing to attend, and be nominated and co-opted, the two authorites in question have insisted that only their own people should be put forward to sit on school boards. Will there be legislation to deal with this, or shall we be able to amend the Housing and Local Government Bill to be introduced tomorrow?

Mrs. Rumbold: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have at times made our views very plain about the placing of political one-party governors on school boards. We deplore this activity in local authorities of whatever political control where it is blatant as the hon. Gentleman suggests. We would much prefer the system that has always prevailed, whereby authorities allocate ward-by-ward representation on governing bodies. Where there is a balance on the local authority of, say, Labour and Conservative, or SLD representatives the ward

schools will have some representatives from those elected for those wards. I hope that that kind of best practice will continue.

Higher Education

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the likely balance between arts subjects and other subjects for study in higher education during the next 10 years.

Mr. Jackson: The balance of subjects will be determined largely by institutions and students. We believe that there should be a further shift towards science, engineering and vocational courses to provide the balance of skills that the economy needs. But this is entirely consistent with retaining high levels of scholarships in all the arts, humanities and social sciences.

Mr. Thurnham: Would my hon. Friend encourage students who are nervous about top-up loans to choose to study useful subjects that are in demand so they can be confident about getting good jobs and have no trouble repaying their debts to society?

Mr. Jackson: I would urge students to consider very carefully the courses that they undertake in the light of what they think is right for them and their future employment prospects. I certainly believe that the top-up loan proposals, which the Government have made and will introduce in due course, will help to encourage a greater sense of economic realism among students, which would be a desirable development.

Mr. Rowlands: In trying to achieve his objective, will the hon. Gentleman attempt not to reduce the choice of arts subjects in schools? In particular, will he take note of and clarify the role of the Training Commission, which is still trying to impose a school curriculum in advance of the national curriculum agreed by the Secretary of State?

Mr. Jackson: This is not a matter particularly for me, but I do not recognise the picture that the hon. Gentleman paints of an attempt to squeeze out arts subjects. That is not happening.

Mr. Rhodes James: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's emphasis on the need for a balance of subjects in the national interest. Does that mean that he and our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will reject the extraordinary proposals of the University Grants Committee to close the outstanding veterinary schools in Glasgow and in Cambridge?

Mr. Jackson: As a result of the review committee, a proposal has been made to the University Grants Committee. The UGC, and the Universities Funding Council after 1 April, will have to consider it. It is a matter for them to consider in the first instance.

Mr. Andrew Smith: Further to his previous reply, what estimate has the Minister made of the effects of the top-up loan proposals on the balance of subjects? In particular, does he agree that medical students, by virtue of the length and nature of their courses, would be especially badly hit and could face outstanding debts of some £19,000 at the end of their courses? What study has he made of that and why does not the loans White Paper refer to medical students?

Mr. Jackson: On behalf of the Treasury Bench I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his august responsibilities. Of course, the Government have considered the impact of top-up loans on student choice of subjects. The conclusion that we have reached is that the consequences are unpredictable. Certainly the scare stories that the hon. Gentleman may be about to launch bear no relation to the position in other countries that have loans schemes for their students on a scale considerably more demanding than the proposals that we are making.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Will it not be essential in the next decade for management education to be extended so that as many young women and men as possible go out into the world without feeling ignorant about the way in which business works?

Mr. Jackson: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government strongly support the development of management education and are very pleased at the progress being made. We hope that it will be faster.

Teachers

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he has any proposals to increase the supply of teachers; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I have outlined my proposals for future teacher supply in a memorandum provided to the Select Committee on which the hon. Member sits. I also announced last Friday radical changes in teacher training to make entry into the teaching profession more flexible.

Mr. Griffiths: The reason for the question is that the memorandum supplied to the Select Committee was pathetically inadequate. In a speech to the Society of Education Officers the Secretary of State said that he intended to keep in touch with teachers who leave the profession. As seven out of 10 do so within the first five years, how does the Secretary of State propose to keep in touch with them? Would not the best way of keeping them be to give them a salary and a status commensurate with the job that they do instead of rubbishing them as has been done for the past 10 years?

Mr. Baker: About half the teachers who take up appointments each year—roughly 16,000—are former teachers returning to the profession. I was urging local authorities to keep in touch with teachers who leave—mainly women leaving to have families—so that they may attract them back. That is an important way of increasing the number of teachers. The hon. Gentleman will know that in the speech that I made on Friday I mentioned two other important initiatives. One is the concept of licensed teachers, to encourage mature people in their 30s and 40s to come into teaching. The other is a new method whereby a student, after graduating in another subject, would go straight into a school and be trained as a teacher on the job.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: In considering the supply of teachers will my right hon. Friend also pay attention to the movement of teachers from one authority to another? In particular, will he give thought to the significance of the fact that many teachers move from inner London and

from Brent to work in areas such as Gravesham? Will he bear in mind that although property prices are similar we do not have the benefit of inner London or any form of London weighting?

Mr. Baker: The problem of housing costs in the employment of teachers has already been raised at Question Time, and as my hon. Friend the Minister of State said I have asked the interim advisory committee for its advice. Many authorities are now putting together separate and individual packages, often involving housing support, to attract teachers.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Secretary of State realise that many young people who would make excellent teachers will not have the opportunity to go to college if the student loan system comes in? Does he appreciate that in Wales the proposal is entirely unacceptable, and will he give an assurance that if students and educationists appear to be reacting against the scheme it will be abandoned?

Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman should be aware of the proposal that I made last Friday, that someone who has graduated in another subject should in future be allowed to be employed by a local education authority immediately after his graduation without having to spend another year in college. I believe that that will be very attractive to many students—they will be trained as teachers on the job and will receive salaries while they are training.

Mr. Haselhurst: Has my right hon. Friend considered whether it will be possible to develop a viable scheme to harness the talents of people recently retired from industry to supplement the regular teaching force, particularly in the shortage subjects?

Mr. Baker: The licensed teacher approach is intended to encourage people in their 30s and 40s who want a career change. It has been pioneered by several local authorities, and later this year we shall regularise it with new regulations. It provides an important input into teaching.

Mr. Straw: Has the Secretary of State no idea of the scale of the teaching crisis over which he presides? Does he realise that three in 10 newly qualified teachers fail to go into teaching the next year, four in 10 new teachers leave the profession within five years and the measures that he announced last Friday are wholly inadequate to the task? Is he aware that good teachers will continue to leave in droves for better-paid jobs outside unless their pay is raised and their conditions improved, and the Secretary of State starts to provide leadership to raise the morale of the profession instead of continually undermining it?

Mr. Baker: The year before last there was an increase of 3,000 in teacher training; last year there was an increase of 1,000. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have read the evidence that I submitted to the Select Committee, or my speech last Friday. I am not complacent, but, unlike the hon. Gentleman, I am not defeatist either.

Schools (Opting-out)

Mr. Roger King: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the present procedure for the balloting of parents on schools opting out of the control of local authorities.

Mr. Baker: The Education Reform Act 1988 provides a framework for such ballots, and the Electoral Reform Society conducts them on behalf of the governing bodies. Secret postal ballots have been held among parents at 21 schools.

Mr. King: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is essential that a ballot to decide whether a school is to opt out should be free from all outside influences? Has the case involving the Small Heath school in Birmingham been brought to his notice? All kinds of shenanigans have been taking place, orchestrated largely by the local authority, one of whose chairmen has branded the head teacher a racist, and the local authority has spent £5,000 on presenting in newspapers the case for not opting out. Is it not time for a strict code for ballots of this nature?

Mr. Baker: I am of course aware of the case of Small Heath school—two attempts in the courts to hold up the ballot have failed—and I deplore the campaigns of misinformation about grant-maintained school policy. I think that those involved in them will be the losers, because parents will be able to sort out fact from fiction. We shall look carefully at the procedures as I want to ensure that they are conducted in an open way that is fair to all parties.

Mr. Denis Howell: Is the Secretary of State aware that the shenanigans to which his hon. Friend referred, and the mis-statements that he has just made about Mr. Justice Popplewell refusing to stop the ballot, are totally misleading? Last Friday in the High Court the judge granted an expedited judicial review of the case in view of the disgraceful fact that the head teacher had taken the children out of classes 40 minutes early, told them to go home and tell their parents to vote "yes" and distributed leaflets to which the parents objected. The judge clearly agreed that nothing could be more contemptible than to use school children as part of an election campaign.

Mr. Baker: It is no good attacking the principle of grant-maintained schools, because it is on the statute book and it is a popular policy. Many parents in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency—his electors and supporters—find it popular. They are fans of that policy. The right hon. Gentleman is behaving like Brian Clough and attacking the fans.

Teachers (Pay and Conditions)

Mr. Key: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he intends to introduce a new system for the negotiation of teachers' pay and conditions.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: The Government hope to introduce new permanent machinery in time for the 1990 settlement.

Mr. Key: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the vast majority in the teaching profession have reacted well to these radical reforms and are working the system. Will he give hope to teachers of good will who wish negotiating rights to be restored and say when he hopes to announce progress?

Mr. Baker: I have set out the Government's proposals for a teachers' negotiating group and I have met the unions and the TUC. I expect to meet them again after Easter to

conduct further discussions. A wide range of views has so far been expressed and it may be difficult to reach agreement and unanimity on the matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Bennett: Will the Prime Minister explain how Trident can possibly be a credible deterrent when the Prime Minister will not have control and command of the launching of the weapon, which will be left to the discretion of individual submarine commanders? Does she agree that it would have been better not to spend £9 billion updating Trident but to provide an effective command and control system for Polaris?

The Prime Minister: A nuclear deterrent has kept the peace for 40 years. History has shown that conventional weapons could not and did not keep the peace. We should be most rash to discard a weapon that has kept the peace until something better is found, and I see no such prospect at present.

Sir Marcus Fox: Does my right hon. Friend agree that statements made by Mr. Viraj Mendis since he returned to his real homeland confirm how right the Home Secretary was to deport him? Does that not mean that many Opposition Members have egg on their faces?

The Prime Minister: Yes, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was absolutely right. He allowed every chance for an appeal and then took what has turned out to be precisely the right action.

Mr. Maginnis: Is the Prime Minister aware of the serious concern in Northern Ireland relating to the conviction for murder of four members of the Ulster Defence Regiment? Is she further aware that it has come to light that significant evidence was not taken into account during the trial and appeal? Will the Prime Minister study the article in last Sunday's Sunday Telegraph and seek the advice of her Law Officers on the matter?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue that matter he knows that the right channels are my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

Mr. Marland: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Marland: Does my right hon. Friend agree that traditionally it has always been agreed that a certain confidentiality needs to be maintained in the workings of Government? Will she take this opportunity roundly to


condemn the grossly irresponsible behaviour of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) in receiving stolen documents and thereby aiding and abetting a criminal offence?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I believe that it is absolutely vital that confidentiality should be maintained. In view of what my hon. Friend has said, I should point out that when the Labour party was last in power that was the view taken by the then Labour Prime Minister, and he was supported by the then Leader of the Opposition. It appears that the Labour party is so bankrupt of argument that it has appointed an official receiver.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the last Member of Parliament responsible for a major leak was given a knighthood and made a European Commissioner?

The Prime Minister: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the question was about receiving—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister must be given a chance to reply.

The Prime Minister: —documents that can only have been stolen. We on this side of the House resent deeply the strictures on my distinguished right hon. and learned Friend.

Mr. Colvin: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to settle down.

Mr. Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to congratulate the people of Gibraltar on the progress that they have made towards economic self-sufficiency? Will she confirm that the decision to redeploy some of our troops elsewhere in no way weakens our guarantee to the people of Gibraltar that the colony will remain British so long as the people there desire it?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The reduction of our forces in Gibraltar does not affect at all our commitment to Gibraltar, which is enshrined in the preamble to the 1969 constitution, which says that we will not alter the status of Gibraltar without the consent of the people of Gibraltar.

Mr. Livsey: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Livsey: Will the right hon. Lady accept yesterday's verdict by the House of Lords, when it passed an amendment enabling shareholders to block the funding of political parties? Will she prevent members of her party from defeating that amendment in this House? In view of the syphoning off of company funds through British United Industrialists, will she ensure that that amendment stays in place?

The Prime Minister: We shall naturally consider the views expressed. I refer the hon. Gentleman to those of my right hon. Friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, who I believe had it absolutely right.

Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the whole House should welcome the visit in April of President Gorbachev, which underscores yet again the importance

of the British role in delicate negotiations? Notwithstanding the Warsaw Pact's attempts to exaggerate the western statistics and to understate its own, the pace of world disarmament and arms reduction talks continues without hesitation.

The Prime Minister: Yes, we are glad that the visit has been reinstated after it had to be postponed for reasons which we fully understood. We hope that disarmament talks will continue. With regard to recent statements, I believe that it is far better for disarmament talks to take place at the negotiating table rather than through speeches, when it is very difficult to agree precisely what the figures are, bearing in mind that for 15 years in Vienna we were not able to get precise figures.

Dr. Reid: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Dr. Reid: This afternoon every potential patient in Britain, including children, will have a price tag put on their heads. Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to state unequivocally that there is only one appropriate treatment for a chronically sick child—the best available treatment, not the cheapest?

The Prime Minister: It is purely because we believe that that matters very much indeed that we have increased the resources available for the entire Health Service from £8 billion to £24 billion and increased the pay of a nursing sister from what it would have been under Labour or if we had increased it by inflation, from just £7,000 to nearly £13,000 a year.

Mr. Adley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the Department of Transport is assessing the true cost to the nation of investment in road versus rail, all the costs should be taken into account? Would she agree with me that, for example, the amount of time that the police force spends on administering the law and dealing with endless problems in the courts and in administration is a major cost to the taxpayer? Will she therefore instruct the Department of Transport that from now on these and other appropriate costs must be taken into account when the various comparative costs are assessed?

The Prime Minister: Obviously, I agree that all relevant costs should be taken into account, but very many more people and goods go by road than go by rail. My hon. Friend may wish that many more would go by rail, and indeed we are trying to improve the rail service so that that is so. But I accept that all relevant costs should be taken into account, although we may not agree on precisely what the relevant costs are.

Mr. Bernie Grant: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Grant: Is the Prime Minister aware that the United Nations secretary-general has been compelled by the five permanent members of the Security Council, including Britain, to propose a reduction in the number of United Nations troops in Namibia from 7,500 to 4,650 during the transition to independence? Has she heard the views of


President Mugabe of Zimbabwe, who has stated that the five permanent members of the Security Council have been fiddling with the moralities of resolution 435? As she will shortly be visiting Zimbabwe and as South Africa continues to support armed bandits and assassination gangs, will she review Britain's position in this matter and insist that the original numbers of troops be maintained?

The Prime Minister: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would wish to uphold a decision of the five permanent members of the Security Council. We shall honour it. The agreement was an excellent one and was obtained by the co-operation of those five members plus the co-operation of South Africa and Angola. I believe that we should do everything in our power to see that it is fulfilled. As far as this country is concerned, we pay our full subscription to United Nations peace-maintaining forces everywhere.

Mr. Tredinnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in recent Israeli raids on Palestinian camps in the Lebanon dogs with explosives tied to their bodies were used and that those dogs and their explosive charges were set off, resulting in the death of the dogs and of many Palestinians? Will she make representations to the Israeli Government deploring this practice?

The Prime Minister: I am not responsible in any way for what happened there. I have heard of no such incidents as those to which my hon. Friend refers. The first thing to do is to find the facts.

Dr. Owen: Is the Prime Minister aware that it is because she cannot bring herself to use the National Health Service that she does not understand the NHS and that the National Health Service is not safe in her hands because there is no place in her heart for it? Will she stop poisoning the moral and ethical basis of the National Health Service and the whole sense of vocation that doctors and nurses in that service have?

The Prime Minister: I could have expected that the right hon. Gentleman might take a totally different view, one

taken by many people far to the left of him—[Interruption.]— who believe that those who can afford to pay for themselves should not take beds from others.

Mr. Cash: Irrespective of the fate of the Protection of Privacy Bill last Friday, is my right hon. Friend aware that this matter commands a great deal of public concern not only in this House but in the country at large, that it is a matter that the press itself must put right, and that if it does not do so the House will have to do so?

The Prime Minister: I believe that last Friday's Bill was very well debated, and I have not the slightest shadow of doubt that a similar measure will be debated either this coming Friday or the Friday after that. I am sure that the observations that were made will have been noted in the relevant quarters.

Mr. Vaz: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 31 January.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Vaz: Will the Prime Minister take time out of her busy day to examine her shoes and, in so doing, will she reflect on the current state of the British footwear industry, which in the last 10 years of her reign has shown a dramatic increase in imports, resulting in many British firms being closed and employees being put on the dole, including Percival's in Leicester? Bearing in mind that there is a penetration rate of 75 per cent. in terms of imports of ladies footwear, will she confirm that she supports the British footwear industry and is wearing shoes manufactured in Britain? Will she also outline her plans for protecting the industry against unfair competition?

The Prime Minister: In fact, the footwear industry is doing far better than it was a few years ago, because its designs are very much better, its prices are highly competitive, and right now, if the hon. Gentleman could see, I am wearing shoes from Marks and Spencer.

NHS Review

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I would, with permission, like to make a statement about the National Health Service review. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a statement for which the House has been waiting.

Mr. Clarke: Britain enjoys high and rising levels of health care and, at its best, our Health Service is as good as any in the world. I believe that the principles underlying the National Health Service still hold good today and will continue to guide it into the next century. The NHS is—and must remain—open to all, regardless of income, and financed mainly out of general taxation. If those principles remain unchanged, the Health Service itself, and the society in which it operates, are changing for the better.
We need constantly to improve and strengthen the NHS so that it can provide ever better care to those who rely on it. At the moment there are wide variations in performance across the country. We want to maintain the best of the Health Service, and bring the rest of it up to that very high standard. That is why the Government set out upon a fundamental review of the NHS last year. We have today published our conclusions in the White Paper entitled "Working for Patients". They build on and evolve from the improvements that the Government have already made to the service in the last 10 years. They reflect a change of pace rather than any fundamental change of direction.
All our proposals share a common purpose—to make the Health Service a place where patients come first and where decisions are increasingly taken at a local level by those most directly involved in delivering and managing care.
The main proposals apply to all the United Kingdom, but there are separate chapters in the White Paper devoted to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland explaining how they will be applied in those countries. Implementation of the proposals will have to follow a process of discussion with many people in the service. We will be issuing in the course of the next week or two eight detailed—[Interruption.]

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) must resume his seat. [Interruption.]

Mr. Doug Hoyle: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you able to tell us what documents are being distributed to Conservative Members and why they are not being made available to Members on this side of the House?

Mr. Speaker: I know nothing of documents, other than the one which has just been handed to me.

Mr. Clarke: If I may help the House, I think that my right hon. and hon. Friends are reading documents that were placed in the Vote Office as I rose to make my statement. My right hon. and hon. Friends prefer to look at those sources for their information, not at information that comes to them in plain brown sealed envelopes. [Interruption.]

Mr. Allan Roberts: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. No documents are available in the Vote Office. If Conservative Members have such documents, they have been given to them by Government sources. We have not got them. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that I can now help the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts). It appears that those documents are available in the Vote Office, because some hon. Members are now coming into the Chamber with them.

Mr. Roberts: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. They are not the documents that Conservative Members have.

Mr. Clarke: I hope that the House will allow me to return to the proposals, instead of being obsessed with documents that accompany what we say.
In order to help the process of discussion with the many interested parties whom I have just described, we shall be issuing in the course of the next week or two eight further detailed working papers as the basis for those discussions.
Before I turn to the key proposals on management and the use of resources contained in the White Paper, I want to describe the kind of hospital service that I believe every patient has a right to expect. All hospitals should provide individual appointment times that can be relied upon. They should offer attractive waiting areas, with proper facilities for patients and children. They should be able to provide proper counselling to those who need it and give clear and sensitive explanations of what is going on. In addition, patients should be able to pay for a number of optional extras, such as wider choice of meals, a bedside telephone, a television, or a single room. The best hospitals already provide this, and I want to see the whole service treating patients properly as people.
We will also ensure that patients are freer to choose and change their GP; and we shall give more encouragement to those GPs who, by offering the kind of service that people want, succeed in attracting more patients. To achieve that, we are proposing to increase the proportion of GPs' pay which comes from the number of patients on their lists, from 46 per cent. to at least 60 per cent.
People look to their general practitioners to prescribe the medicines they need, and GPs must have the necessary flexibility to do so. But at present, drug costs in some places are nearly twice as high per head of population as in others, even where the incidence of illness is much the same. The drugs bill is the largest single element of all spending on the family practitioner services. At £1·9 billion in 1987–88, it was more than the cost of the doctors who wrote the prescriptions. In each of the last five years, spending has risen by an average of 4 per cent. over and above the rate of inflation.
Unnecessarily expensive prescribing is wasteful and takes up resources that should be used in other ways. Over-prescribing is not in the best interests of patients. We shall therefore introduce a new budgeting scheme whereby GP practices will receive indicative budgets for their prescribing costs. The scheme will be operated in a way that ensures downward pressure on the cost of prescribing without inhibiting the ability of doctors to provide necessary medicines for their patients.
At present, because of the way that hospitals are funded, GPs are not always able to offer their patients a full choice as to where they will be treated. We want to


change this by giving GPs in large practices the opportunity to hold their own NHS budgets. They will be able to use these to purchase as they judge best certain types of hospital services for their patients. They will, in other words, be able to provide the hospitals they choose for their patients with the NHS funds required to finance the services the hospitals perform. These GP practice budgets will cover in-patients, out-patients and day care treatments, such as hip replacements and cataract removals. They will also cover prescribing costs and diagnostic tests, such as X-rays and pathology tests.
Large practices will be free to decide whether to join the scheme. It will, at first, only be open to practices with at least 11,000 patients—that is, twice the national average. Over 1,000 United Kingdom practices could join, covering about one in four of the population. All those practices could have their own NHS budgets of about£500,000 a year. Giving GPs the resources to finance services for their own patients will provide a real incentive to hospitals to improve the service they offer to those GPs. It will also enable GPs to provide a better service to patients by referring them, for example, to where waiting lists are shortest. I am quite sure that GPs will want to judge the quality of service at least as much as the cost of service when they decide where to refer their patients. We have important proposals on the quality of medical service to which I shall turn in due course.
But it will not just be through GP practice budgets that money will follow the patient to where work is done best. The principle will in future apply throughout the Health Service as a whole. As part of this new way of getting resources to hospitals, the present elaborate system which we all know as the RAWP system will come to an end. Over the past 12 years it has made an important contribution by helping to equalise the resources available to each region, but that task has now very largely been achieved. [HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh yes.

Mr. Graham Allen: Not in the right hon. and learned Gentleman's district. It is losing £8 million this year. The Secretary of State is changing the rules.

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say to hon. Gentlemen who are making comments from a sedentary position that they do not improve their chances of being called to ask questions later.

Mr. Clarke: Over the past 12 years, the RAWP system has made the contribution that I have described, but we are now in a position to replace it with an altogether more simple and fair system based on population numbers weighted for age and health, and the relative costs of providing services. The new method will be much quicker to compensate those regions which treat large numbers of patients from elsewhere in the country. We will move to a system that finances regions and districts on exactly the same system, with a 3 per cent. addition for the Thames regions because of the inescapable extra problems of providing health care in the capital.
In future, the money required to treat patients will be able to cross administrative boundaries much more freely, so that those hospitals that best meet patients' needs get the funds to do so. All NHS hospitals will be able to offer their services to different health authorities and the private sector. All district health authorities will be able to provide finance for health services to whatever hospitals they

choose, in other districts or in their own. As a result, we shall not in future have the frustrating situation that occasionally arises now, whereby a good, efficient hospital that attracts more patients runs out of money and has to slow down its work or close wards. This new system will start in 1990 for regional health authorities and 1991 for districts.
But improving the hospital service is not just a matter of changing the way in which hospitals receive their funds. We also want to change the way in which they are run and managed. We want all hospitals to have more responsibility for their own affairs, so that they can make the most of local commitment, energy and skills, and can get on with what they are best at, which is providing care.
Management can be strengthened throughout the whole Health Service. The better the management the better the care it can deliver. Financial Zaccountability and value for money will be improved by transferring audit of the health authorities and other NHS bodies to the independent Audit Commission. The role of the National Audit Office will not be affected by this change. On management matters, it is nonsense that the Ministers of any Government should be directly involved in the detail of the day-to-day running of the whole NHS. We shall therefore set up a new NHS management executive, chaired by the new chief executive, Mr. Duncan Nichol, and responsible for all its operational decisions. It will be accountable to an NHS policy board chaired by the Secretary of State for Health who will determine policy and strategy for the Service.
The prime responsibility of health authorities will be to ensure that the population for which they are answerable has access to a full range of high quality, good value services. Their job will be to judge the quality of services, to choose the best mix of services for their resident population and to finance those services. They will no longer provide and run all their local services, which will be increasingly the role of the hospital and unit managers themselves. Authorities will need to be organised as more effective decision making and managerial bodies. We shall therefore be changing their composition to make them smaller and to include executive as well as non-executive members. The non-executive members will be appointed on the basis of the personal skills and expertise they can bring to the authority and not as representatives of interest groups.
Although there will no doubt continue to be people who will combine being members of local health authorities with being local councillors, local authorities will lose their present right to appoint direct their own members to health authorities. At the same time, we shall also be strengthening the management of family practitioner committees along similar lines. We shall also make the FPCs accountable for the first time to regional health authorities to improve the links between planning for the hospital, community and family practitioner services.
We must devolve responsibility across the whole Health Service, but I believe that we can also go one stage further. The next logical step in the process of extending local responsibility is to allow individual hospitals to become self-governing. Let me make it absolutely clear that they will still be as much within the NHS as they are now. They will be no freer to leave the NHS than they are now. They will be no freer to leave the NHS than any unit has been throughout its 40-year history. They will, however, have


far more freedom to take their own decisions on the matters that affect them most, without detailed supervision by district, region and my Department. To be known as NHS hospital trusts, they will be free to negotiate with their own staff on rates of pay and, within limits, to borrow money. They will be able to offer agreed services for agreed resources throughout the NHS and, indeed, in the private sector, too. There will of course be safeguards to ensure that essential local services continue to be delivered locally. I believe that this new development will give patients more choice, produce a better quality service, build on the sense of pride in local hospitals, and encourage other hospitals to do even better in order to compete. I expect the first NHS hospital trusts to be set up in April 1991.
In all these reforms we intend to concentrate on the quality of care just as much as the quantity and cost. I admire the progress that the medical profession is making in devising systems that doctors call "medical audit" to assess clinical performance and outcomes. We intend to work with the profession to ensure that good systems of medical audit are put in place in every hospital and GP practice as soon as is practicable. What matters for all patients is that high standards of medical performance are maintained, and where possible improved, and such systems should secure that.
I turn finally to the matter of perhaps greatest public concern—waiting times. All the measures that I have so far outlined by making resources flow more directly to those parts of the service that deliver the best care, will help to cut the length of time that people sometimes have to wait for elective surgery. The waiting list initiative will continue, but we shall also introduce a number of other initiatives designed to have a more direct and immediate impact. First, we intend all GP practices to have the basic information systems they need to know where treatment is available quickest. Secondly, we shall introduce a new tax relief to make it easier for people aged 60 and over to make private provision for their health care. This will reduce the pressure on the NHS from the very age group most likely to require elective surgery, freeing resources for those who need it most.
Thirdly, we shall manage consultants' contracts more effectively so that the very best use is made of their time and expertise. We shall also reform the consultants' distinction award system to ensure that commitment to the service and involvement with the management of the NHS are included among the criteria for distinction awards. Fourthly, we shall increase the number of consultants by 100 over the next three years, over and above the increase in the number of consultants already planned. These additional consultants will be appointed in those specialties and in those districts in which waiting times are most worrying. Finance will be made available to cover the costs of the new appointments, and the supporting services for their work load. This will help us keep up the attack not only on waiting times, but on long hours worked by junior doctors.
Taken together, these proposals add up to the most formidable programme of reform in the history of the NHS. They are the latest step in our drive to build a stronger, more modern, more efficient Health Service. An NHS that is run better will be an NHS that can care better.
The proposals will, of course, mean change, but change of the kind we need if we are to have a service that is fit for the future. I trust that all those who—like me—truly believe in a Health Service that offers high quality care to all our people will lend their support to these reforms, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Robin Cook: The Government set out on their review last winter, not, as the Secretary of State claimed, because they wanted to maintain the best in the NHS, but because the NHS was in a cash crisis. The rest of us thought that the crisis was that the NHS had too little cash. It is now evident that the authors of the White Paper always thought that the cash crisis was that the NHS cost too much. It is the prescription for a Health Service run by accountants for civil servants, written by people who will always put a healthy balance sheet before healthy patients.
Will the Secretary of State tell the House how many more bureaucrats the NHS will need to make this package work? Will he tell us how much time doctors will have to take off patient care to file their financial returns? Will he tell us how much more the monitoring, the pricing and the bargaining over every treatment will add to the cost of administration, and whether a single closed ward will reopen as a result of the White Paper?
The Secretary of State assures us that it has never entered his head to privatise the NHS. Will he confirm that his White Paper proposes that medical services will now go the way of ancillary services and be put out to competitive tendering? If he wants to reassure the House, will he tell us which medical lines he is not prepared to privatise?
The Secretary of State assures us that those hospitals that opt out of their local health authorities somehow will not have opted out of the Health Service. Will he confirm that they will trade on their own account, that they will charge for every treatment, that they will retain their profits and that in every important respect they will be identical to the private hospitals with which they are to compete. Is he aware that the nation will not be taken in again by the Government's trick of sizing up public assets for private sale under the pretence of greater economic efficiency?
The White Paper's only feeble pretence at consultation is that a proposal to opt out will be given "adequate publicity locally". I assure the Secretary of State that we will save him that trouble. We will ensure that every proposal to opt out is fully exposed for what it is—a staging post to opt in to the private sector. To enable us to get started now, does the Secretary of State have the courage to name those hospitals that he expects to opt out first in two years' time?
The Secretary of State claimed that his proposals for private practice give GPs more freedom. Is not the truth that they limit the freedom of GPs to decide what treatment their patients need and replace it with the freedom to decide what treatment they can afford? Under his scheme, every patient has a price tag. Does not the Secretary of State realise that, for the first time, GPs will have an incentive to turn away those patients with a high price tag? The elderly, the disabled and the chronically sick will now be told, "Sorry, but you do not fit the business logic of this practice."
The Secretary of State was good enough to tell us that he believed that some GPs prescribe too much. Will he be good enough to tell the House which patients, in his medical opinion, get too many prescriptions and which


patients will get fewer prescriptions under his scheme? He had the brass neck to claim that the White Paper will increase patients' choice. Why does he not admit that his scheme means that patients will go not to the hospitals that they want to go to, but to the hospitals where their GP has the cheapest bargain? That is not money following the patients; it is patients following the money.
The Secretary of State has confirmed that the Prime Minister has had her way, and there is to be a subsidy out of taxation for private medicine. Will he confirm that in the whole White Paper that fatuous irrelevance is the only proposal for help for the medical care of the elderly? Does that not speak volumes for the Government's priorities? There is to be no relief for hard-pressed geriatric wards, but a new subsidy for private hospitals.
Why did not the Secretary of State take this opportunity to respond to the Griffiths report on community care which he has had for almost a year? Is it to be ignored again because the private sector cannot turn a fast buck out of the community care of the handicapped and the elderly?
The White Paper is the product of a review behind closed doors by closed minds. Junior ministers, we read, were consulted over dinner at No. 10. Junior doctors were not consulted. Nurses were not consulted. Patients were not consulted. The result is a series of proposals that will be as unworkable as they will be unpopular.
Now the nation has a chance to join in the debate. In that debate, we shall take every opportunity to hammer home the fact that the White Paper proves that the change that the NHS needs more than any other is a change of Government.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman started with some extraordinary comments about the amount of cash that was accompanying the review and seemed to imply that there was none. He talked about the time that has elapsed since the review was first announced. During that time, over £2,000 million has been added to NHS budgets in the public spending round and nearly £1,000 million has been added to finance the nurses' regrading exercise. Next year we are contemplating spending a total of £20,000 million.
The Labour party has no proposals for health at the moment, except some half-baked proposal for an inspectorate put forward in one of its documents. If its policy remains that nothing needs to be changed but that somehow it would add more money to what we put in, I shall regard such an approach to health care as pathetic and quite inadequate to meet the demands facing the service, which needs money and new ideas, both of which it is getting from the Government.
The hon. Gentleman treats in a most derisive way what he refers to as the accountancy and financing aspects, about which he asked me various questions. Again, I find that astonishing. If the hon. Gentleman shares my belief that there is no reason why the public service should not be run with the same efficiency and consumer consciousness as the private sector—[Interruption.]—he cannot dismiss the value of modern management disciplines, financial accountability and consumer consciousness that we are seeking to build into the Health Service. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has been asked a series of questions. The hon. Member for

Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) stands very little chance of being called to put a question if he continues to behave as he is doing.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Member for Livingston asked about what he describes as the proposal for hospitals to opt out of district health authority care. I repeat that there is no question, and there never has been, of those hospitals leaving the NHS. The only person who has ever suggested that is the hon. Gentleman, when he purported to be describing documents which at that stage he would not read out to the public to whom he was talking. That ridiculous argument can be set aside.
I have described self-governing hospitals as being free of the constraints of detailed control from district and regional authorities and central Government which hospitals are presently under. The hon. Gentleman obviously prefers a service in which everybody is answerable to a bureaucratic district health authority, and he does not like proposals to give greater freedom to those with responsibility for care nearer to the patient.
The hon. Gentleman talks about practice budgets which we will offer—again a detail that he left out before today—to those large general practices which want to take them because they see their attractions to themselves and their patients.
It is ludicrous to describe this as inhibiting the ability of the GP and the GP's patients to have choice in the service. The reverse will be the case. At present, if a GP tries to send his or her patients to a hospital to which they have not previously been committed, the effect is to pose a financial problem for the hospital because no funds come with the patients. We are providing for NHS money to move with the patients, with the patients' choice, and to be available to those general practices which have the ability to manage it.
Doctors seeking to increase their number of patients will, contrary to the hon. Gentleman's assertion, have just as much, if not more, regard for the quality of care which a hospital might provide to the patients and not just to the costs. Indeed, what we are suggesting gives greater incentives to enhance quality.
On prescription costs, the hon. Gentleman has the temerity to attack what we are proposing to exercise downward pressure on prescription costs. I have read some of the Labour party's published documents, including the party's so-called green paper—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am answering the question. I am using the hon. Gentleman's own words to answer his criticism of what we are saying about prescribing costs. The hon. Gentleman said in that green paper:
It is not immediately apparent that the current high level of drug consumption is a considered measure of the need for medical treatment. Inappropriate prescription does not merely result in ineffective expense but, more seriously, can adversely affect patient care.
I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said. Why does he not make proposals to deal with it and why does he attack the proposals that we have announced today dealing with the self-same problem?
The tax relief proposals will assist many elderly patients who pay for private practice throughout their lives and find the costs increase when they reach the stage of their lives when they most need elective surgery. In so far as we support those people who provide for their own elective surgery, it will reduce the pressure on the rest of the service


and help other elderly patients who will be able to get quicker waiting times and more access to the services of the NHS.
We look forward to the debate. We will be consulting. We have a policy which will be followed up by working papers and detailed discussions in the next few months with everybody interested in the subject to work up the implementation of these proposals. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make a better contribution to that debate than he and his party have made so far—[Interruption.] The trouble with the hon. Gentleman is that, even when he gets accurate leaks, he does not bother to read them and he does not bother to interpret them correctly or understand them. He now has the real White Paper and will find that we are miles ahead of him and his party in suggesting improvements for a stronger NHS for the future.

Dame Jill Knight: Anyone who has listened properly to my right hon. and learned Friend's comments this afternoon will be well aware that the National Health Service has a strong future and that the prime objective of the review is to improve patient services. So let us get away from the claptrap of the Opposition and talk about facts.
I invite my right hon. and learned Friend to comment further on the phrase "the money will follow the patients", as some doctors may feel that unless the money precedes the patients, the treatment may not be there to fund it and the effect on waiting lists will not be seen. Will he assure us that the present monumental waste and extravagance of the way in which alleged misdemeanours by hospital consultants are dealt with will be ended by the proposals in the review?

Mr. Clarke: As my hon. Friend says, these proposals look to the future of the NHS, whereas the Labour party is accustomed to looking to the past of the Service. Our proposals are marked, above all else, by our concern to concentrate our efforts on patient care and introduce changes that benefit patients.
I talk about money following the patient, and my hon. Friend's correction is good. One is talking about the time when the right mix of services is being planned by a district health authority for the patients in that district; then it will make provision in advance for the necessary finance to provide the services, as will the GPs operating their own practice budgets.
What I mean by the phrase is that judgments will first be made about the quality of the service that can be provided in different places, about the satisfaction that patients will get from it, about the waiting times that they may encounter before their treatment, and then the budgets will ensure that the money goes to those parts of the service where the treatment is given best.
That is not the case at present. Some hospitals find that if they work too hard they run out of money. Hospitals that do not work hard or efficiently are quite well provided with finance because the formula gives them all that they require and they appear to be free of problems. That is not in the interests of the patients, and we want to encourage good performance.
As for the disciplining of those few consultants who get into difficulties with their authorities in the management of

their contracts, we shall be strengthening the management of consultants' contracts and district health authorities will be acting as the agents for the regional health authorities in drawing up new job descriptions for consultants about the work they do.
We have a long-standing problem about the discipline of recalcitrant consultants. I am glad to say that we have reached some agreement with the representatives of the profession and, following a recent working party report, we intend to introduce proposals which will have some simpler local methods of dealing with minor problems and will speed up the present appalling process whereby serious disciplinary matters are handled in the service.

Mr. Frank Field: Does the Secretary of State accept that in the long run the most significant statement he has made this afternoon concerns the tax funding of private health care for pensioners? Is he aware that, now that that principle has been established, it will be ever more difficult to prevent the concession being extended to other groups, and that once that stampede is on it will become impossible for him to maintain a line about the necessary funding for a common health service? Is that not why—for all those reasons—he opposed that reform right up to last Thursday's Cabinet meeting?
When considering reactions to his proposals, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that, while it is important to listen to doctors, nurses and ancillary workers, the views of the customers—the patients—are crucial? If he accepts that form of political consumerism, will he monitor his proposed reforms and report to the House on whether the customer services have improved or have been cut as a result of today's package?

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman makes a curious choice. As I am aware of his interest in the NHS and his openness at least to new ideas and methods which might improve the flow of services to patients, I take it as a welcome sign that he asked not a solitary question about the NHS parts of the proposals and queried only the tax relief to the private sector.
I do not see the analogy between our tax relief proposal and other claims for tax relief with which over the years we have all become familiar. The Government have rejected the case for general tax relief for contributions to private health care. But the situation of those over the age of 60 is plainly different from that of analogous claims that are made elsewhere. People who have been insured throughout their lives find that the premiums rise steadily at the very time when they want to make most demands on the service for which they have been paying. It is also a clear example where the tax relief to those who will continue, out of their own pockets, to contribute towards their care will be of obvious and direct benefit to every patient in the NHS by relieving the pressures on elective surgery.
I do not believe that this proposal, once implemented, will ever be repealed by the Labour party—or I look forward to seeing how it will ever argue for the withdrawal of this help for elderly people paying for their private health care.
To answer the hon. Gentleman's question about the monitoring of the reforms, we shall begin by having detailed discussions on their implementation. There are huge details to discuss—on matters such as GP practice budgets, self-governing hospitals and drug budgets. But in


all that we do we shall, of course, listen particularly to the views of the public and the patients. In dealing with the big management and financial issues, we shall not forget—the point I made at the outset—the interests of patients who do not want to be kept hanging around waiting, who want to know what is going on and who want a patient and friendly service from the hospital. They and their GPs will have greater ability to choose that between various hospitals as a result of what we are proposing today.

Sir David Price: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that his proposals to decentralise decision-making within the hospital service will be dependent on two factors? The first is an increase in the quality of medical audit and of real costing, and the second is a major improvement in the quality of middle and senior managers.

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is perceptive, and what he says is undoubtedly the case. This will require a huge improvement in the financial information that is available within the service. It is astonishing that a service that consumes £26 billion is at present so devoid of basic information about the use of resources, about comparative costs and so on. That will be acquired.
It will also need the people necessary to carry it out and have the ability to make proper use of these systems; and by "people" I mean the consultants and medical staff, who must be just as involved and have just as leading a role in organising all this properly as their management colleagues with whom they will work.

Mr. Archie Kirkwood: Extra resources are of course needed in the NHS, but is the Secretary of State aware that these proposals could inflict potentially great damage on the fundamental principles of the NHS in future? Does he not accept that leaving health care to the vagaries of competition in the free market is a very unsafe way to proceed when delivering health care? In relation to primary health care, how is he going to protect the income of rural general practitioners' services? In particular, what incentives will GPs have to look after the elderly and infirm?
With regard to hospitals, is the principle of RAWP being abandoned? Some of the discrepancies between regions have disappeared, but there are still major discrepancies between health districts up and down the country. Can the Secretary of State also say whether the patients' travel costs, which he calls administrative boundaries, will be refunded?
Returning to the question raised by the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) about tax relief for the elderly, is he aware that the Daily Telegraph of 16 January, so far from saying that no precedents are being established, said that the same scheme could apply in logic to the cost of private schooling? What does the Secretary of State say to that?

Mr. Clarke: First, I urge the hon. Gentleman to study closely what I accept is an extremely detailed and complicated document, with a great sweeping reform. I think that then he will see that the principles of the Service are in no way threatened, as he clams, and that there is no prospect of any patient dropping through the system without essential care or essential medicine, or anything else.
I agree that we shall have to look at the problems that might otherwise be caused for rural general practitioners if we increased the percentage of remuneration that comes from capitation. The document therefore also canvasses our other proposal, to vary the level of the so-called basic practice allowance in different parts of the country. A higher basic practice allowance will, in my opinion, be required in scattered rural areas such as that represented by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), and in the constituencies of many other right hon. and hon. Members.
With regard to the treatment of the elderly and infirm, no doubt the hon. Gentleman has in mind the prospect of some large practices going in for a practice budget. It has been suggested, I see, that somehow they will have some incentive not to take on the elderly or infirm patients. Like many other things that I have heard discussed in the past few days, we had thought of that over the past few months, and we have long ago covered the problem.

Mr. Frank Dobson: Answer the question.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) will have to study this reform, and the working papers that are coming forward. I will answer the question now. In putting together a general practice budget, one must have regard to the number of patients, the age of the patients, their comparative sickness, and any other features that affect the practice. If one has a high proportion of elderly patients, one gets paid more for elderly patients than for younger patients. Any practice that refuses to take elderly patients, for some eccentric reason, will simply find that it is not paid so much per head as if it is taking only younger patients. It is quite easy to put together a budget-negotiating process that makes it clear that there is no financial advantage for any GP to select his patients in that way.
I have described the abolition of the RAWP system, but the hon. Gentleman the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire again is quite right in saying that there are still considerable discrepancies, some of them between the English regions and some between the districts. We will therefore be moving towards the system that I have described, over a period of two years for regions and rather longer for districts. There will still be, within an ever-growing total, some further redistribution from the Thames regions to the provinces, before we get to the position that I have described in today's statement.
As between the districts, there will still need to be some movement towards a common, fair and level basis, but we shall phase that in steadily to avoid any sudden movements of funds between districts. We believe that now is the time to get rid of RAWP. We shall certaitnly ensure that none of the discrepancies of the past that were caused by RAWP, and the gaps between targets and sudden movements of funds are brought back again by our new system.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I wish to congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on the dramatic programme of reform that he has outlined to the House this afternoon. I share his objective, as I am sure does the whole House, that we should get a better quality Health Service and better value for money.
Will my right hon. and learned Friend give me two assurances this afternoon—first, that the opting-out


proposals for a number of hospitals will not make it more difficult to plan a comprehensive health care service in areas up and down the country? Secondly—the Secretary of State will be probed fully about this when he comes before the Select Committee—could he go further into detail about how practice budgets will accurately reflect the various breakdowns in the lists of patients, especially the elderly, the mentally ill and the disabled, and where demographic changes occur over time?

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a fair man, that now he is prepared to contemplate and look more closely at the details of the full proposals, in the light of his first comments upon them. I think they are both very valid.
I have certainly heard the points he has been making, and we anticipated them. The opting out of hospitals must not disrupt essential services in the area. One condition of self-governing status must be that the region requires that hospital to continue to provide local emergency and other services that must be provided locally. If there are to be changes in the patterns of service, some notice must be given to the districts and regions so that planning can take account of them. All that will be contained in the working documents available to the Select Committee and others.
Similarly, with practice budgets, I tried in a comparatively potted way, by my standards, to give a brief discription a few moments ago of how we were tackling them. We obviously need to ensure that, in putting together the right budget for a general practitioner or group of GPs, we accurately reflect the likely different needs and demands of patients of different ages and conditions.
I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said this morning on the radio. I should have liked to reply to him then, but no doubt in the Select Committee and in discussions afterwards I shall be able to reassure him on that point.

Mr. Michael Foot: One of the major weaknesses in the Government's review, as it appears to people from outside, and no doubt one of the major causes of the many defects in the plans put before us today, arises from the absence of any consultation, or what could properly be called by that name, by the Government of the people who work in the Service. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman now tell us whether he is proposing to have any genuine consultations with people working in the Service: with the nurses, the unions, the British Medical Association, and the presidents of the royal colleges? Are they to be consulted at all, in a way that enables them to make a radical alteration to the proposals that the Secretary of State brings forward, or are the Government proposing to continue with the same method that the Prime Minister used, of slamming the door in the face of the presidents of the royal colleges and not caring what the people who work in the Service have to say?

Mr. Clarke: The National Health Service has a rather poor track record in communicating with its own staff and the people who work in it. For that reason, immediately after this statement we are having an exercise that will communicate with all our staff throughout the Service, and we shall discuss with them the implications for them and their patients of what I am proposing. [Interruption.]
The reaction to that, as we can hear, is that any attempt to communicate in that way, rather than through the agency of the trade unions, is bitterly attacked by the Opposition, who are consulting before they have a policy. I accept that that is the principle of the listening party.
I have been looking at Labour's consultation documents and I see that it is not putting forward a solitary idea. All it has come up with so far, rather than putting forward new ideas, is a half-baked idea of an inspectorate, which is the kind of thing one would expect the Labour party to come up with.
The Labour party's idea of consultation on health policy, as we all know, is to ring up NUPE, reversing the charges, and ask what they should be expected to say. We propose to run the Health Service in an altogether more constructive fashion.

Sir Peter Emery: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind the fact that, in answering any attack on this scheme, he must emphasise the caring nature of any Government who will spend an extra £3,300 million on the Health Service in this period?
Will my right hon. and learned Friend answer two questions for me? Will the amount of money that will be available to the large practices, allow them to use funds for the support of cottage hospitals in the country, to build up some of them in areas where they provide a major service for people?
Secondly, will my right hon. and learned Friend perhaps think again to overcome the appointment of consultants by means of a contract for life? The concept that any person today can from the moment he gets his first appointment believe that he holds the appointment for ever seems inequitable and wrong. For a consultant, surely, a four-year contract to begin with, then to be renewed, is something everyone would support.

Mr. Clarke: If a well-run general practice makes savings on its practice budget, for example, by making use of a new formulary and tightening up prescribing costs, it will be able to plough back those savings into local services. We will not claw savings back from successful practices. That would permit them, for example, to put the funds into cottage hospitals supported by local GPs as part of local general practice.
On consultants' contracts, we are not changing the basic nature of the contract, which is not quite as my hon. Friend described: a consultant is in theory open to dismissal at three months' notice. At the moment, that is subject to a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), we are reconsidering the position because of the ineffectiveness of that right of appeal and the length of time it has taken in the past. We think that we have reached agreement with the profession about it.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement, which has clarified some points which did not come across in the official leaks. For example, until today I was not aware that Northern Ireland was included in the review. Will there be a discussion with people in Northern Ireland akin to what is planned for England and Wales and, to a lesser extent, Scotland? The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland paid a fleeting visit to the Chamber earlier, but there is no one from Northern Ireland here now to answer such questions.
Will the National Health Service management executive and the National Health Service policy board include representatives from Northern Ireland, or are they technically for England and Wales? The Minister said that efficient hospitals would not have to close wards because there was not enough money. Is that an open-ended commitment to general practitioners throughout the land to provide them with sufficient funds to treat their patients properly?

Mr. Clarke: I understand the hon. Member not fully appreciating the scope of the review before today, because he had to rely on the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) to be the interpreter of most of the documents which were available. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has been closely involved in all this. The review will apply to Northern Ireland, but in a way which reflects the local service. One whole chapter, chapter 12, is about Northern Ireland and explains exactly what will happen. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will have discussions within Northern Ireland with all interested parties.
The policy board and the management executive relate to my responsibilities, which are for the English Health Service and for England only. The position in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is different in a number of important ways. My respective right hon. Friends will be responsible entirely for the way in which the principles of the policy are put into practice in their countries.

Mr. Roger Sims: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his imaginative proposals, which are centred not on the clinicians or on the administrators but on the patients, are warmly welcomed on this side of the House, as they will be throughout the country? It must make sense that patients, GPs and administrators can choose where treatment is to take place on the basis of quality and cost. That can be done only if it is possible to compare costing in the Health Service with that in the private sector. At present, that is not practicable in many areas, because the information is not there. What steps is my right hon. and learned Friend taking to enable comparisons to be made?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with all the points which my hon. Friend has made. It is important that, when people are making a choice based on a combination of quality and cost, they should have the best information. The information should be properly comparable between one hospital and another within the Health Service and between the NHS hospital and the private sector provision. That would make it possible for a district health authority or a general practitioner to look to the private sector for part of the service and equally possible for the private sector to look to the NHS. The artificial divisions, and the daft political argument that has gone on about the respective merits of the public and private sectors, should be put behind us, and we should all work to the best effect for patient care.
We will have to develop systems for costing. That will include examining methods of reflecting various capital costs between one and the other, as well as the revenue costs incurred in particular services. This will involve a major management effort over the next couple of years before the system can get running.

Mr. Jack Ashley: If the National Health Service is to be as good as the Minister

says, why is he encouraging older people to take out private medical insurance? Surely they are wasting their money. If the NHS is not to be as good as he says, what will happen to the millions of people who cannot afford private medical insurance? Can he tell us also why he has misled the House of Commons about the future of the Health Service? Does he recognise that great institutions in Britain are driven by their objectives and that the noble objective of the National Health Service is the best possible treatment, which is to be replaced by the cheapest possible treatment? That is an act of political vandalism for which he will never be forgiven.

Mr. Clarke: As the right hon. Gentleman puts it, we may be encouraging elderly people to go for private care, but they do not need encouragement from the Government. It is an inevitable consequence of rising living standards that an ever-increasing proportion of the population want to consider making insurance provision for their own health care. I cannot for the life of me see why we should stand in their way. If we encourage it for those over the age of 60 it will benefit millions of other elderly people by reducing the pressure on elective surgery in the Health Service, thus reducing waiting lists and waiting times. That is the basis on which we are proceeding.
I accept entirely what the right hon. Gentleman described as the noble objective of the National Health Service. The growing silence and absence of people on the Opposition Benches is because they realise that they have been misled by their official spokesman into believing that that objective was under attack. No doubt most of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends have gone to the Library to look through the document to try to discover how the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) felt able to base his attack on the document by raising all over again his ridiculous hare that we were trying to privatise the service.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the provision of 100 new consultants must have an effect on waiting lists? Will he also confirm that these consultants will be given the necessary back-up staff they require?

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Over three years, there will be 100 extra consultants, with the necessary support care they require. The problem is not with the people. There are a little over 100 who will be qualified for appointment in that time. We need the actual men and women to be consultants. Then we need the operating theatre time, the beds, the nursing staff and so on. Finance will be available to provide the back-up which will enable the extra work to be done. The consultants will be appointed in key specialties such as general surgery and general medicine where waiting times are worst. The extra consultants will also have some impact on the problem of junior doctors' hours. It is not every junior doctor who works the long hours which we all know to be excessive. Junior doctors' hours tend to be worse in general surgery, general medicine and obstetrics.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The statement is nonsense in Wales, where we do not have regional health authorities. We should have had our own statement. Can the Secretary of State clarify the position in large, scattered areas, where virtually no medical practice comes up to the


11,000 threshold? They will miss out on the opportunities. Likewise, in valley communities, will this not lead to an amalgamation of practices and a lessening of choice for patients? As there are virtually no private beds in Wales, is it not appalling that paragraph 11.9 of the White Paper should give priority to an increase in private provision, which is deeply detestable to the thousands of doctors, nurses, paramedicals and auxiliaries who work in Wales and who have given a lifetime of service to the NHS? Can the Secretary of State give an assurance that any hospitals currently under threat of closure will have the threat removed until the full implications of the statement have worked through?

Mr. Clarke: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales was also closely involved. There is a chapter on Wales, which the hon. Gentleman will have seen. Wales is of a size similar to an English region. That gives my right hon. Friend and the Welsh the advantage of having the centre of the service much closer to practical provision on the ground. The Welsh have been spared some of the remoteness which I hope we shall now overcome in England by devolving so much responsibility to lower levels of management nearer to the patient. I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman wants to be sure that GP budgets are introduced in Wales. Any question of reducing the threshold for Welsh general practice will have to be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: I warmly welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's revolutionary proposals for patients, within an evolutionary framework. But will he confirm that, when the GPs' budgeting scheme comes into force—including the scheme for prescriptions—no surgeries will close and no patients will be deterred from treatment or turned away because of a lack of resources?

Mr. Clarke: I can give an absolute assurance to that effect. As will be clear to my hon. Friend, now that he has the documents, the system will be very flexible. Those who start overspending can indeed be called to account, but there is no question of stopping the service.
For the past few days, my hon. Friend and I have had to put up with critics projecting the absurd vision of practices closing down in the middle of February until the next financial year, people being turned away from medical treatment and so forth. Anyone who wants to know what will happen should study our proposals with care. Those who have tried to find criticisms of them have been on a wild goose chase.

Mr. Peter Shore: The Secretary of State has already told us about the massive extension of medical auditing, accountancy and financial costs that his proposals will entail. Has he costed the proposals? If so, will he tell us what the cost will be, and whether he will make additional finance available to the Health Service or intends to meet the cost of his reforms from existing expenditure?

Mr. Clarke: "Medical audit" is a phrase that I do not like when it is applied to a system of quality control devised by the medical profession. Clinicians will consult each other about the outcome or success of procedures, comparing notes and advising each other on how to raise

the standard. That is separate from financial auditing. We have always had financial auditing in the Health Service, and we are now strengthening that by giving it to the Audit Commission and making it independent from the Health Departments. I am sure that the whole House wants good financial auditing and value-for-money studies in the Health Service, in the interests of taxpayers and patients.
We made provision for some of the implementation costs in this year's public spending round. Provision has already been made in regional budgets for the introduction of financial management systems and so on, which, despite the attacks on them by Opposition Members, are desirable in themselves. If we were not reviewing the Health Service, we should still want Health Service management to take advantage of the best modern management techniques and to improve management information. It is shell-backed in the extreme for the Opposition to oppose advances in a great public service.
I can give the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that the cost of the proposals will not be met at the expense of plans for patient provision. There will be some cost up front, although eventually the savings made by cutting out waste will outweigh that and will benefit the service generally.

Dr. Alan Glyn: Having removed the difficulty of doctors using different areas, can my right hon. and learned Friend envisage a system in which the number of vacant beds is made available to doctors, so that, instead of having to ring round and ask hospital after hospital whether there is a vacancy, they will know immediately?
When will the self-governing hospitals come in? Is it possible to advance the date if a hospital wants to become independent before then?

Mr. Clarke: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's first point. It is an excellent idea. I envisage that, as soon as possible, the microcomputer that every GP will have on his desk will provide, among other things, instant access to information about waiting lists within a wide area of his practice, so that he can advise patients about the shortest waiting times. In future, when he refers his patients, the hospital will pay for the extra patients, whereas in the past he would rather pay the hospital to keep it quiet, because it might receive patients for which no financial provision had been made.
We shall put the first self-governing hospitals into operation as quickly as we can, but for all the reasons that have been enumerated, including those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), it will take a year or two before the first hospitals are capable of managing the process of self-government and making a success of it.

Mr. Jim Sillars: Will there be separate Scottish legislation to give effect to the document? Secondly, is the Secretary of State aware that he has now put the final nail into the lid of the coffin of the Tory party north of the border? It is transparently clear that the intention of the lady in Downing street is to fracture the national character of our Health Service and commercialise it, as a prelude to privatising it. We have never believed her claim that the National Health Service was safe in her private-patient hands. Is the Secretary of State aware that the fundamental gulf between the Scottish people and the English Tory party that governs us at


present is that we do not consider the concept of market forces compatible with the medical ethic of providing care at the point of human need?

Mr. Clarke: We will probably not begin drafting legislation for any country until the summer, when the process of discussion will have advanced considerably. I am certainly not contemplating legislation in the present session of Parliament. When we draft the legislation we shall no doubt decide whether to have separate Bills for England, Scotland and the other countries or to have a single Bill for all of them.
I am rather vague about Scottish questions, because although the document contains a chapter dealing with them, the system of governing the Health Service in Scotland is completely devolved. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is clearly best placed to answer questions about Scotland, and has already offered a debate in the Scottish Grand Committee.
I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman should think that opinion in Scotland will be so different from that in England. It would be absurd if we had a modern, more patient-conscious and efficient Health Service in England while the Scots preserved the Health Service as it was 40 years ago, with some modest changes. I know that my right hon. and learned Friend does not intend that, and that he will ensure that the Scottish Health Service, in a Scottish fashion, is made stronger, better and more responsive to patient needs.

Mr. Steve Norris: I warmly welcome my right hon. and learned Friend's statement. May I remind him, however, of his comment that the better the management, the better would be the care? Many of us may be disappointed if he limits the management of consultants' contracts to giving district health authorities some sort of vague agency rights. Those of us with experience of managing the service at district level will look to him to ensure that consultants' contracts are held at that level by those who have to manage the consultants. Will he assure us that his effective management of consultants will include that provision?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend has considerable experience of a district health authority himself, and I know that his views are shared by many people in such authorities. I ask him, however, to look closely at our proposals. Although the contract will be held with the region—it would be disruptive to change that for the sake of change—management of the contract will be devolved to the district, as the region's agent. In particular, the new provision for an up-to-date job description, to be reviewed each year, will close the gulf that sometimes now exists between local management and consultant.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: The Secretary of State failed to answer the point about lack of consultation. Will he now tell us plainly why the review had to take place behind closed doors? Could the reason have been a fear that evidence given publicly by those in the profession would get in the way of imposing this kind of change? Will the Secretary of State admit his determination to impose cash limits on general practice? Can he not imagine the shudder that will go through people when they realise that their treatment will be subject to the state of the practice budget?

Mr. Clarke: I hear what the hon. Lady says about consultation, but it seems to me that it is the duty of Government—and of a political party, come to that—to have a policy on how they propose to improve a great public service. Of course, having produced our policy, we are also producing a large amount of back-up material on which we will have the widest possible discussion with everyone interested, and we are starting discussions with our own staff straight away.
We are engaging in much closer discussion with those who really work in the Service than I think has been tried by anyone before. The Labour Party's idea of consultation is to take a blank sheet of paper with no policy on it and to hold a series of silly meetings at which it asks whether anyone has a good idea. That is no way to form a policy.
I have already tried to explain—successfully to most people—that there is no prospect of patients' access to care being determined by the state of GPs' budgets. In the extreme case of a practice that has consistently overspent by more than 5 per cent. for two years in succession. its budget will be taken away and it will be brought back into the general service. That will be a matter between the practice and the regional health authority. The patient will not notice any difference, except that, if the budget is operated properly, he will find that his GP can offer better choice and service, and hospitals will have an added incentive to provide better service.

Mr. John Greenway: Does not the clear and unambiguous support for the principle of a free Health Service available to all, outlined in my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's foreword to the White Paper, constitute the most significant commitment to the National Health Service since it was formed 40 years ago? Is it not also right that the success of any service should be measured by the satisfaction of its customers and that, in putting patients first and creating a more coherent, responsive and effective National Health Service, the Government are right to say that we are working for the patient?

Mr. Clarke: The Labour party has been acting in this way for years. I am sure we all remember the 1983 election, which was largely fought by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) claiming that he had a secret document that said that the Government were about to privatise the Health Service. All that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has done is to take that old gimmick out of its box, give it a whirl again and claim that it was possible to rerun the story on the strength of the leaked information he had received. We have not only repeatedly committed ourselves to the National Health Service—as we do today—but we have demonstrated that commitment by putting in more resources to enable the Service to treat 1·5 million more patients now than when the Government came to office. We have made it a better and more effective service for patients, and we propose to continue doing so.

Mrs. Rosie Barnes: Will the Secretary of State accept that, for the first time since the formation of the National Health Service, general practitioners will have financial incentives to limit how they treat their patients? There will be a restriction on prescribing and an incentive to refer fewer patients to hospital. Most importantly, there will be a strong disincentive for doctors to take on to their lists high-risk, high-cost patients such as


the elderly, the chronically sick and the mentally ill. There is already evidence that, in the United States, where there are budget restrictions, such patients find it hard to persuade a GP to take them on. What would be acceptable grounds for budget practice GPs refusing patients? What right of appeal would the patients have, and to whom would those GPs be accountable if they refused?

Mr. Clarke: I do not understand why we should not offer incentives to GPs to make cost savings in their practices. At present there are wide discrepancies in costs between similar practices. Prescribing costs vary between different practices by as much as four times; the number of patients referred to hospital can vary by 20 times. If savings are made by GPs, they will not be clawed back by the Treasury but will be ploughed back into the practice to develop patient care in any way that the GP wants—for instance, in the form of new chairs for the waiting room or the support for a community hospital that my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) mentioned.
I thought that I had dealt several times with the argument that there will be incentives to take low-risk patients. That might be so if we paid the same rate for every patient, but we do not. By paying more for high-risk patients we have eliminated the risk—which I understand the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mrs. Barnes) fears—that there might be a disincentive to take high-risk patients. We always do our best to ensure that no such perverse incentives are built into health care systems.
When the hon. Member for Greenwich studies the report, she will find that much of what it recommends is astonishingly near to what the leader of her party, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), advocated two or three years ago as an internal market in the Service. We have refined that idea to a much greater extent than anybody else and produced a good system, whereby cash follows patients. Immediately, the Social Democrats disown their interest in the internal market, saying that it is a commercial system and dreaming up all sorts of fanciful risks that they say will lie behind it.

Mr. Derek Conway: The fact that the NHS is treating more patients with more doctors and resources proves the Government's commitment to the NHS, not the Opposition's stolen lies. What will the proposals mean for rural areas such as Shropshire, which has a population of less than half a million but covers a land mass in excess of 25 per cent. of the west midlands? We should also like to opt out of the dead hand of regional control.

Mr. Clarke: I am familiar with the problems of Shropshire, not least because they are often pressed upon me by my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway)—[Interruption.] I think that my hon. Friend will acknowledge—even if the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras is not instantly familiar with Shropshire—that the background to the problems in Shropshire is that we are opening, at considerable expense, a new district general hospital in Telford. Shropshire will have two district general hospitals, and would have had 20 small ones as well, had the service not been rationalised.
I know that my hon. Friend disapproves of how the region, and to some extent the district, have gone about rationalisation. Therefore, I am sure that he will welcome

any proposals that give more local responsibility for such matters. Shropshire will want to take advantage of them as quickly as possible.

Dr. Lewis Moonie: The Secretary of State's own GP will undoubtedly receive a large premium for looking after him after these these reforms are introduced, because he clearly has only a tenuous grasp of reality. The proposal is born of the eccentric mind of someone in the Adam Smith Institute who has no concept of what it is like to run a health service, as opposed to talking and thinking about one.
I wish to put three specific points to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Speaker: Order. One question, please.

Dr. Moonie: The three points are all part of the same question about how the service will be administered.
The Secretary of State mentioned the patients' dependency as a factor for calculating costs. Is he aware that there is no way of measuring costs on an individual basis? He mentioned patient administration systems in hospitals. Is he aware that, as yet, no such system is fully effective? How long will it be until such a system is fully effective and capable of general introduction? Where shall we find computer staff to run it? The Health Service is already short of such staff.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman talks about the need for clarity about how to measure different aspects and needs of patient care. As he knows, our English system of RAWP and the similar system in Scotland, SHARE, depend on a complicated formula that attempts to distribute resources on the basis of population, numbers, age and morbidity. It is easier—

Dr. Moonie: Reliable data do not exist—ask your officials.

Mr. Clarke: That is how it works. We shall discuss details afterwards. I am more familiar with RAWP than the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie). Any distribution of funds involves such calculations. We must make the best calculations using modern methods. We have been developing patient administration systems and resource management information systems as rapidly as possible. They are required in the Health Service and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome their introduction. We have an ambitious timetable to introduce the necessary systems to implement the reforms. We shall need computer staff to do so, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman's recognition that the modern administration of a good large system is a good step—even if, at present, that is not remotely comprehended by his right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party.

Mr. Robert McCrindle: If greater efficiency and better value for money are the watchwords of the White Paper, as they seem to be from my initial reading of it, is it not true that the health authorities appear to have escaped leniently? Does not my right hon. Friend agree that there is a case for the abolition of regional health authorities and for the absorption of some of their residual activities into the Department of Health? That would strengthen and exercise greater control over district health authorities. Is it not a fact that, rather than approaching it in that way, the White Paper appears to be strengthening the power of the regions?

Mr. Clarke: I would not take the powers of the regions back into the centre on any account. If we had to deal directly with 190 districts and 90 family practitioner committees—without any regional authorities—it would be impossible to have any effective contact. We shall get the regional health authorities to concentrate on their real job, which is distributing funds locally, monitoring performance and laying out policy objectives. We shall stop the amount of detailed decision and supervision at regional level, which is no longer suitable for the Service.

Mr. Terry Davis: As some general practitioners refuse to give reasons for removing people from their list, how will the Secretary of State prevent a general practitioner from removing a patient from his list when the high risk has become high cost? If family doctors are trying to work within a budget, and even make savings, how can patients be sure that the doctors will do their best to arrange for the treatment needed by a patient, even if it means that the budget will be exceeded? Does not this development strike at the very heart of the relationship between doctors and patients?

Mr. Clarke: The doctor will be paid for a high-risk patient. Therefore, the financial incentive which the hon. Gentleman believes to exist simply will not exist. With regard to the patient's satisfaction with his or her treatment and service, we propose to make it easier for the patient to choose for him or herself. If patients become dissatisfied with the service they are receiving from one doctor, we shall ensure that it will be easy to transfer from one doctor to another. That will give a greater incentive to general practitioners to ensure that the quality of the service and the way in which it is provided are the best possible for the patients in their care.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: Further to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), I welcome the confirmation that cottage hospitals, which in Norfolk do so much for the care of the elderly, will still have a role to play. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, increasingly, their future will be in the private sector, but with beds set aside for NHS patients?

Mr. Clarke: I believe that many cottage hospitals have an extremely important future. The last one I visited was Bealeys. It is an extremely small, well-run, GP hospital, which has a secure future in Bury. I know that there are many cottage hospitals in Norfolk, too.
The cottage hospitals will, of course, be able to continue as they are now. They will be given, anyway, greater responsibility for their affairs, because of the general devolving of responsibility about which we are talking. It is conceivable that some will find that self-governing status is suitable for them. Some hospitals are run by the GPs as independent hospitals. It is that variety of provision which is best. People in Norfolk know best how to provide for Norfolk. The combination of NHS and private care provided in Norfolk in their small hospitals will make it much easier for people in Norfolk to decide on their care.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Minister agree, from his constituency and family experience, that people, especially the elderly, value district general hospitals and expect to go there—not further afield—when they are ill? Will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman's scheme encourage wider

movement? Why should people from Newham have to go to Newmarket, people from Grantham to Gainsborough, or people from Finchley to Fulham? Is not such criss-cross market movement, even perhaps by motorway, completely incompatible with the wishes and the deep desires of the patients? How does he square that with the signed statement by the Prime Minister that the patient's needs will always be paramount? Does not that incongruity suggest that neither patients nor the Health Service are safe in her hands?

Mr. Clarke: I agree that patients look increasingly to local provision, which is why we have had such a massive system of capital expenditure to improve local hospital provision throughout the country, and it is much less concentrated than it was. When confronted with the choice of either speedy treatment 30 miles down the road or a long wait for treatment in their local hospital, it will be for the patient and his or her GP to decide whether the inconvenience of travel is worth the speedier treatment. It would be perverse to deny patients that opportunity to choose. We are proposing that the patient should make the choice.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Can my right hon. and learned Friend tell us about extra resources for patients who have come out of hospital—for instance, stroke patients—and need physiotherapy if they are to recover the faculties and functions they lost? My right hon. Friend will recall that Devon Members discussed this matter with him a couple of weeks ago. As there is less provision to keep patients in hospital long term—that seems to be a medical trend—the need for follow-up medical services and services ancillary to medicine simply are not being met at the moment. How does the very imaginative scheme that he has announced today compete with that admitted problem?

Mr. Clarke: Certainly, the services of the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend are every bit as important for the local community as services in the acute sectors of the hospital. I should make it clear that, when we talk about self-governing hospitals, what we are talking about in practice is the hospital together with the associated community health services, which we are used to seeing provided alongside hospital services, such as district midwifery and health visitor services, physiotherapists and other people providing service. We shall have to deal with the problem of stroke patients and others in Devon in our response to the Griffiths report on care in the community. We shall have to ensure that we are able to make the best and most sensible use of the resources available to carry on strengthening our community services.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have an obligation to protect the subsequent business. I appreciate the importance of this statement. I will allow it to continue for a further five minutes. We shall then have had an hour and a half, which is a long time for a statement, but then we must move on.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: The Secretary of State began his speech by bemoaning the increasing cost of drugs to the National Health Service. Why does he not insist upon generic substitution for drugs


in the Health Service, or even—better still—tackle the problem at source by taking the private monopoly drug companies into public ownership?

Mr. Clarke: I believe that general practioners should prescribe generic drugs when the remedy is as effective as a more expensive and branded alternative. We have been encouraging that. The last time that I was involved in an attempt to move in that direction, with a selected list, the Labour party made the foolish mistake of opposing it bitterly as a wicked attack on a doctor's freedom of choice. Having seen some of the hon. Gentleman's documents, I believe that his party is at least moving in the right direction on that subject. We shall not force generic substitution. We are constructing a system which will give every encouragement to general practitioners to make a sensible clinical judgment and go for the less expensive remedy when it is every bit as effective medically as the expensive alternative. We are tackling that all over again, and I look forward to the support of the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. Tim Yeo: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that his proposals will be welcomed by everyone who has the future of the NHS at heart? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree, too, that the fact that patients will be given more choice and power will provide the best possible spur to greater efficiency, effectiveness and consumer acceptability? Does he agree that the only person to whom his proposals must have come as a bitter disappointment is the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) whose statements over the past few days have been shown to be so absurd that he no longer possesses any shred of credibility?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. I entirely endorse what he said. These proposals are for the benefit of the patient and every management or financial change of whatever complexity has underlying it the desire to ensure that the resources go to where they can best be used for patient care. The Labour party has no answer or equivalent to that. As my hon. Friend has said, I hope that the silly games that the Labour party has been playing in the past few days will be exposed for what they are.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Minister confirm that his proposals will mean the end of national pay bargaining, and that one of the reasons for him meeting in secret was that he did not want to alert the staff to that fact? Is he aware of the disgust at the decision to kick out the only elected members of district health authorities, which is just one more example of the authoritarianism of this Government?

Mr. Clarke: I have long been advocating a much more flexible pay system for the National Health Service.

Mrs. Mahon: We know that.

Mr. Clarke: We have introduced more flexibility for some staff. We have asked the review body to consider

allowing us to experiment with more local variations in the remuneration of nurses where there are local difficulties in recruiting them.
Of course, we keep our present structure of pay bargaining, but I make no apology for saying that I think our proposals will encourage more flexibility, and the self-governing hospitals in particular will take full advantage of it.
We are altering the nature of the district health authorities. It is nonsense that, at the moment, local government has the right to directly nominate representatives on the Health Service. Many of them do very valuable work but, at the other extreme, there are some who are merely there to bring local politics into the decision-making process of the Health Service. In some cases they have been exceedingly disruptive and people working in the Health Service—doctors and others—have to sit and listen to discussions of subjects which are only dimly related to the day-to-day problems with which they are dealing with in the hospitals.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: In giving a strong welcome to these proposals, but questioning whether they go far enough, can I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to acknowledge that restructuring the system, replacing one allocation system by another or introducing budgetary independence does not in itself create net additional resources with which to satisfy the increasing demand for medical services of all kinds? Will he therefore keep an open mind about extending the tax relief that has been introduced for elderly people—which I very much welcome—not ruling out the possibility in the course of time of basic charges for hospital services?

Mr. Clarke: Plainly, we are injecting resources into the health system at the moment because we are reflecting rising demands for health care. Our proposals are not a substitute for more resources but are accompanying the extra resources which the Government are putting in from the taxpayer in order to make better use of the service. That is the way forward.
I do not agree with my hon. Friend on the general case for tax relief, largely for reasons which lie outside my direct province. I do not believe that the tax policy of the Government is to give tax relief for desirable forms of expenditure compared with others. We prefer a level of taxation which is low and gives the maximum individual choice to the taxpayer. However, the position of the retired, who often have contributed during their lifetime to health care, is different and it is defensible to say that to encourage, in the public interest, those people to continue in, or come into, private insurance is beneficial in effect for the general public.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say to those hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies who have not been called that I shall do my best to ensure that they are given some precedence when we subsequently debate this matter.

Points of Order

Mr. Frank Dobson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier, in response to queries from a number of my hon. Friends the Secretary of State said that hon. Members on the Government Benches had in their possession certain documents which could be obtained from the Vote Office. I am not suggesting that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was attempting to mislead the House, but what he said was not true. The White Paper was available in the Vote Office, but the abbreviated version distributed on the Government Benches—the idiot's guide to the White Paper—was not available either in the Vote Office or in the Library. Even the DHSS press office was unable to say when it would become available, although it believed that it was intended to be made available at the Secretary of State's press conference.
I should be grateful, therefore, Mr. Speaker, if you would quire into how the custom and practice of the House came to be breached in this way, so that pamphlets printed at public expense were distributed on the Tory Benches but not on the Opposition Benches, and make sure that this does not happen again.

Mr. Speaker: It is not my responsibility, but the Secretary of State will have heard what has been said. I hope that it will always be the practice for the same documents to he equally available to hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Tim Yeo: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you also, if you are going to undertake such an inquiry, inquire why the document that was available to the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was not also made available to the House?

Mr. Speaker: That is equally a matter for others, not for me.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could I draw to your attention the fact that every Privy Councillor you called this afternoon and every spokesman for the minority parties immediately walked out once they had asked their questions? This showed their concern about this matter. The rest of us stayed for an hour and a half. Can you bear this in mind when you give them some sort of preference in the future?

Mr. Speaker: I also have to bear in mind those hon. Members who seek to make interventions from a sedentary position during a statement.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are you suggesting in that statement to the House that those of us who may have intervened from a sedentary position will be penalised when you select on the next occasion on which these matters are debated? If so, a very important precedent is being set today. I have sat for two and a half hours in this

Chamber waiting to be called. I understand that there are pressures on you, Mr. Speaker, but I hope that you would not penalise me for perhaps saying a word or two across the Dispatch Box.

Mr. Speaker: Twice during the course of the statement, when there was a great deal of noise while the Secretary of State was speaking, I warned those who were intervening from sedentary positions that they could not expect any precedence in being called subsequently to ask a question.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is pretty—[Interruption.] Hold on a bit; you may get reprimanded. It is pretty clear, Mr. Speaker, that you did not quite establish which hon. Members were making the noise, because the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price), an ex-Minister, whom I would not describe as a lager lout, at his age, was swearing, I believe at the leader of the provos, and after about five minutes he was called. So you obviously did not carry out what you threatened to carry out. If you cannot carry it out for him, you cannot carry it out for us.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the whole House will agree that, when we have a statement by a Minister for which we have all been waiting for a long time, it should be heard in silence and listened to with attention and not amid shouts from a sedentary position. It is not good parliamentary manners.

BILLS PRESENTED

CHANNEL TUNNEL ACT 1987 (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Robert Adley, supported by Mr. Robert Hicks, Dr. John Marek, Sir Gerard Vaughan, Mr. John Home Robertson, Mr. Hugh Dykes, Mr. Tam Dalyell, Mr. Nicholas Baker, Mr. Eric Martlew, Mr. Peter Rost, Mrs. Rosie Barnes and Mr. Andrew Rowe, presented a Bill to repeal section 42 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 17 February and to be printed. [Bill 57.]

RESALE OF TICKETS

Mr. Menzies Campbell, supported by Mr. David Alton, presented a Bill to prevent the unofficial resale at unreasonably high prices of tickets to events to which the public are admitted: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 3 March and to be printed. [Bill 54.]

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the two motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Board) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order 1989 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Armed Forces Housing and Tax

Mr. Julian Brazier: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a house purchase savings scheme for the armed forces enjoying the same tax relief as houses for owner occupiers and the same treatment under the Building Societies Act 1987.
My Bill seeks to tackle an injustice that has affected the armed forces for a generation. The present Government have a good record on armed forces pay. Indeed, they have applied in full the recommendations of the pay review body in every year since they were elected. But the core of the Thatcher revolution, the heart of the new prosperity, is the ownership of a home. In the country as a whole, approximately 64 per cent. of the population live in owner-occupied accommodation. Within the armed forces, among other ranks fewer than a quarter own houses, and even among officers the figure is below the national average. Moreover, those who do own houses have very severe problems in so doing, as I shall explain in a moment.
Let us consider the position of a sergeant major, or even a major, who retires after many years of service with the bulk of his earning capability behind him and without even the first toehold on the property ladder. A number of such people have ended up commuting the bulk of their public service pensions to buy the most modest little dwellings. Some have simply ended up homeless, and I have had a number of them in my surgeries.
A sergeant whom I know, who has served 21 years in the Army, including 11 tours on active service in Ulster, said:
I have seen a corporal opposite me with eighteen years service and a sergeant with twenty-two years service round the corner evicted by bailiffs. I have three children at school. I do not understand why I should be joining the back of a queue behind delinquents and squatters for a council house after serving my country for over twenty years.
Had he not joined the Army, that man would almost certainly have been an owner-occupier rather than applying for a council tenancy. I have been approached by any number of former and serving Army—officers most of them worried about the men who have served under them rather than about their own position.
The way in which the Ministry of Defence has tried to tackle this difficulty has been to encourage service men to buy their own houses while they are serving. This has achieved much progress in the Navy and Air Force because most of their personnel serve in this country, but unfortunately in the Army just over half the trained strength serve outside mainland Britain. The problems of buying a house in Ulster are every bit as serious as in Germany or elsewhere abroad. The result is that for the soldier, unlike his civilian counterpart or his counterpart in the other two services, buying a house does not mean buying a home—it means becoming an absentee landlord.
Is it really fair to ask a young family to take on the burden of renting their quarters, paying the mortgage on a house of their own and trying desperately to get a tenant to balance the books? Even if they get a tenant, and no scheme can guarantee that, they have to pay tax on the rent from the tenant, but they get no tax relief on the rent that they pay for their quarters and they also have to pay agents' fees. The result, of course, is that the soldier rapidly decides that the best way to escape all the problems that arise, with or without tenants, is to leave the Army, and a

growing proportion of soldiers are doing so. Premature voluntary release from the Army is now up 73 per cent. on what was already an unsatisfactory figure five years ago.
The sad thing is that it is going up fastest among the minority who have bought houses. Their wives simply get desperate. For example, Canterbury's own regiment—the Queen's Regiment—has three battalions, one in Germany, one in Leicester, and one in Tidworth. How on earth is a corporal in Germany or Ulster expected to make mortgage payments in one place and pay rent in another? His wife almost certainly cannot get a job as there are no jobs for wives in BAOR. What is happening in the Queen's Regiment, as in so many others, is that, as soon as a couple have managed to buy a house, the pressure is on the soldier to leave the Army.
The way the problem is tackled by every other employer I know who sends people abroad—including the Civil Service, clerks and drivers in the Foreign Office, teachers sent abroad, as well as the whole of the private sector—is that anyone who goes abroad lives free. As that would be unrealistically expensive for the Army, I am asking for a much more modest scheme which would cost the taxpayer very little. I am asking for a housing savings scheme to be established which would attract the same tax benefits that the rest of us get as owner-occupiers but without forcing the soldier to buy and then let a house. The particular scheme that I have put to the Minister—there is no time for me to go into details now—involves allowing the soldier effectively to buy a quarter, but not that physical building—he buys at a fixed national average price on an index, and when he moves out has to sell back at the new index price.
I have been through the scheme in detail with two building societies. They tell me that the index already exists in outline and that in principle they would be willing to lend against this form of security. The scheme would not cost the taxpayer a penny beyond the amount already available from the taxpayer if the man goes out and buys a house, but it has the enormous advantage that he is not under any pressure to leave the Army when tenant-related problems arise.
I do not wish to push the details of any one particular scheme too hard, but if we are to keep a modern Army together, with the lean recruiting years of the 1990s coming, and if we want to keep the best people in the armed forces, it is essential to introduce a scheme which allows service men to accumulate capital while serving so that they can own a house at the end of their service, with the same tax advantages as their civilian counterparts but without having a house hundreds of miles away that they have to try desperately to let. This is a very grave problem, and one which must be tackled soon. It is a grave injustice and also a foolish injustice because it is driving many of the best people out of the Army.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Julian Brazier, Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith, Sir William Clark, Sir Jim Spicer, Sir Marcus Fox, Sir Antony Buck, Sir Charles Morrison, Mr. John Heddle, Mr. David Evans, Mr. Keith Mans, Mr. Ian Taylor and Mr. Jacques Arnold.

ARMED FORCES HOUSING AND TAX

Mr. Julian Brazier accordingly presented a Bill to establish a house purchase savings scheme for the armed forces enjoying the same tax relief as houses of owner occupiers and the same treatment under the Building


Societies Act 1987; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Wednesday 1 February and to be printed. [Bill 56.]

Orders of the Day — Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I should tell the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and his hon. Friends.

Mr. King: It is a key objective of the Government, not merely to prevent discrimination but, much more importantly, to encourage and achieve genuine equality of opportunity in employment. The principal objective of this Bill is a moral one. It is to ensure that a person's opportunity to obtain employment and all its benefits is determined not by which part of the Northern Ireland community he or she comes from, but according to ability, and ability alone. That is a fundamental right of every human being. It is a major political objective of this Government to ensure that it is delivered in Northern Ireland.
Behind that moral principle lies a stark economic fact: that the male Catholic population in Northern Ireland today has an overall rate of unemployment some two and a half times that of the male Protestant population. It is beyond question that there are substantial and continuing differences in the relative rates of unemployment and employment between the two sections of the community—despite the 1976 Act, despite the hard work of the Fair Employment Agency over 13 years, and despite the efforts of many employers and of successive Governments to attract investment to those areas of greatest economic depression and those areas most severely affected by the troubles.
Nor is it right to think of this only as a Catholic grievance; discrimination against Protestants clearly exists as well, and is equally unacceptable.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Everybody would deplore discrimination, but to what extent is existing discrimination possibly dependent on the fact that outsiders would not wish to invest in those areas where they might feel IRA activity would render their investment less successful? Also, to what extent is the existing differential in levels derived from the fact that there is intimidation, particularly by the IRA, against people taking up employment opportunities?

Mr. King: I will say a word about the different causes, but my hon. Friend is right to say that those are two of the elements that contribute to this problem. I have never ceased to remind this House and everybody in Northern Ireland of the damage to employment prospects that terrorism certainly does.
It would be wrong for me or for anyone to pretend there is a simple explanation for these problems. There is no doubt that to some extent higher Catholic unemployment has been caused by discrimination. I have drawn attention to discrimination against Protestants at times as well. To


some extent it is caused by terrorism, by geographical differences, by where people live—my hon. Friend drew attention to that as well—or by differences in education, family size or the skills traditionally associated with one community or another.
But rather than get bogged down in what could be a very long argument about the relative significance of each of these problems, I simply want to say two things. First, the Government recognise that the problem is a complex one, and therefore calls for a variety of different responses. Secondly, we are not willing to accept the problem as though it is in some way inevitable. In a part of the United Kingdom which has a rate of unemployment higher than that of any other region, it is essential that any inequalities are tackled vigorously; that those jobs that are coming are fairly distributed, and everyone has the fullest opportunity to be fairly considered for jobs for which they are suited; and that Northern Ireland should be seen nationally and internationlly as a place to invest where employment practices are fair.
We do not want the improved perceptions of Northern Ireland as an expanding region with a good supply of well-motivated and highly skilled workers to be tarnished by an image of unfairness in employment. It is not in anyone's interest—for unemployed Protestants, any more than for unemployed Catholics—that that situation should be allowed to continue.
This Bill marks a further stage in our determination to meet this challenge. We can go right back to the work of Sir William van Straubenzee, a former colleague on this side of the House, in 1973 which led to the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976. Much has been achieved since that time, but it is also clear that we need to reinforce our efforts if we are to get the improvement that we need. More recently, in 1985, we set in hand a major review of the situation, and the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights undertook a comprehensive review itself starting in 1985. In 1987, we issued to all employers a guide to effective practice, and in 1988 we established a fair employment support scheme giving free consultancy and financial assistance to introduce better practices. Indeed, many employers are already adopting the practices set out in this Bill.
I referred to the work of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. The recommendations contained in its excellent report have formed the basis for the central provisions of this Bill. The Government strongly endorse many of the views of the standing advisory commission, which have been of major importance in formulating future Government policy on fair employment in Northern Ireland.
I said at the outset, and I have always said, that there is no question of Protestants being dismissed so that Catholics can take their jobs. I have also said that the Government reject absolutely the proposal that there should be a proportion of jobs reserved for Catholics and another for Protestants. To make appointments on the basis of religion, with whatever motives, would be not only morally wrong but grossly unfair to those individuals who were affected by it. It would also be directly against the economic interests of Northern Ireland employers. One of

the main principles underlying the Bill is that religion should be irrelevant to anyone's chances of obtaining employment.
This is one of the lessons we have learnt. Another which has emerged from the past 10 years' experience of the existing fair employment legislation is that simply to prevent or to avoid direct and deliberate discrimination is not in itself enough to ensure equality of opportunity between Catholics and Protestants. Disadvantage arises often from unconscious discrimination as well as from deliberate sectarian prejudice.
Established patterns of employment tend to perpetuate themselves, particularly in a divided society. This can very easily lead to the virtual exclusion of either Catholics or Protestants from a particular work force. Without any deliberate or malign reason, one section of the community may find itself effectively excluded from consideration when vacancies are being filled. One of the main aims of the Bill is therefore to ensure that, where necessary—and it very often will be necessary—employers take positive steps to open up their employment opportunities to applicants from all sections of the community. Equality of opportunity is not something that will happen of its own accord; it must be planned for and worked for, like other business objectives, and that is what a main part of this Bill is about.

Mr. William Ross: The Secretary of State keeps talking about Catholics and Protestants. Should he not be taking about perceived Catholics and perceived Protestants and on the basis of which primary schools they attended? Does he not recall that there was a famous case in Northern Ireland when an individual complained on religious grounds, because he was a Free Presbyterian, of discrimination perpetrated against her by another Protestant denomination? Will the Secretary of State confirm that the freedom of each Protestant denomination to complain when it believes that it is being discriminated against by another Protestant denomination will be included in the Bill?

Mr. King: Of course it will be open to people to raise complaints about discrimination on the basis of religion. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point in an entirely constructive way to help to tackle the evil of discrimination, wherever it may arise, and not in any sense to suggest that this measure is not a sensible way in which to proceed. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. It has helped to make that point very clearly.
What this Bill seeks to do is to improve the recruitment and employment policies of Northern Ireland employers. The Bill places a number of new duties on employers and provides new ways in which employers can obtain the information and the advice which they will need in order to discharge their obligations as effectively as possible.
Part I of the Bill deals with the new institutional arrangements. In place of the Fair Employment Agency, the Fair Employment Commission will be established with considerably enhanced powers and a substantial increase in funding and staffing. Its powers will be to investigate and give directives for changes, if necessary, and to investigate patterns and practices of employment. The commission will have significant powers, but they are very much intended as back-up powers. I emphasise that the Bill's first aim is to promote a constructive working relationship between the commission and employers. The


commission will be responsible for drawing up the new code of practice, with detailed guidance for employers on how to improve their employment practices and to help them in that way. In advance of the new code, we shall make available before the Committee stage a preliminary draft of the revised guide to effective practice, which will serve in the interim period, in advance of the new code being available, as the first code.
The commission will seek to help employers to find workable solutions to their problems, and will be keen to encourage voluntary undertakings, in suitable circumstances, to achieve those objectives.
In addition to the commission, the Bill establishes a new fair employment tribunal, which will operate on the model of industrial tribunals. It will deal with individual complaints of religious discrimination, such as the one to which the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) referred, as well as with others that might more commonly occur. It will also deal with the enforcement of directives of the commission, or it will hear appeals against directives.
In this way, a new body will be established which will cover both the responsibility for determining individual cases and appeals and enforcement. It will be exclusively concerned with fair employment issues and thus will build up considerable experience and expertise in such matters. Another very important point that many people have recognised and appreciated, and one that is very different from the present situation, is that this body will be quite separate from the body that is conducting the investigations, giving advice and trying to help employers to meet their commitments and obligations. That will be the task of the Fair Employment Commission.

Mr. Ian Gow: Is my right hon. Friend able to tell the House that the Bill's proposals have been broadly welcomed by employers in Northern Ireland, whether they be Roman Catholic or Protestant?

Mr. King: There is a general recognition among industries and employers of the need for fair employment to be established in Northern Ireland. Many employers have spoken to me and have given warm general support for the objectives. But I am also aware that there are employers who are concerned about the specific application of individual aspects. Those matters will be discussed in Committee because there are concerns about the ways in which details will apply. I have found that the employers to whom I have spoken support the need for firm legislation and are determined—as people determined to work for the good of the Province—that Northern Ireland shall be recognised as a place where fair employment practices operate. However, there may be concern about details and those are matters that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will seek to discuss in Committee.

Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, and I apologise if he is about to come to this matter. He has implied that the commission will have a great deal of power and will be able to direct companies as to what they should do with regard to fair employment practices. Could he tell the House what these powers are and in what areas the commission will be able to give direction? Could my right hon. Friend be specific?

Mr. King: I may be able to help my hon. Friend because I am coming to the point about the duties of employers, when the matter will become clear. Part II deals with the new duties of employers. It deals with the duty to register, to monitor and periodically to review their practices to see if they need affirmative action. It provides duties and powers for the commission to assist employers and to assess how they are doing. It also provides for Government grants and public sector contracts to be withheld from defaulting employers.
There have been a number of misconceptions about monitoring. Monitoring is concerned with the overall pattern of a work force, not with the religious affiliation of any particular individual. There have been suggestions that monitoring will reinforce or introduce sectarian divisions. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), that is one of the employers' concerns. We do not believe that that is the case. It is certainly not the experience of those employers in Northern Ireland, both in the public and the private sectors and in the Civil Service, who are already operating monitoring programmes. Monitoring is a statistical exercise and any information about identifiable individuals is subject to very important statutory safeguards.

Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the Secretary of State agree that, when monitoring takes place. it is important that there should be a reliable degree of accuracy and that, where up to 8 per cent. of employees cannot be identified, there is an unreasonable degree of accuracy? Steps should be taken to correct that.

Mr. King: I am not quite clear about the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but it is no doubt one that he can make in his own speech later or pursue in Committee.
In addition to the monitoring of employees that I have described, the Bill also provides that all public sector employers and private sector employers with more than 250 employees will also be required to monitor applications for employment, to cover applications to join the existing work force. The second important obligation on registered employers is to review their employment practices, to assess whether fair participation is being achieved and to consider what affirmative action may be needed.
The Bill does not attempt to define fair participation or to prescribe any particular levels or proportion of participation for which all employers should aim. What is fair must depend on the circumstances of the individual company. It must take account of where it is, the size and nature of the catchment area from which employees are drawn, the type of work involved and the availability of suitably qualified applicants.
In essence, what the employer must ask himself is whether, given all the factors and circumstances, the composition of the work force is broadly in line with what may reasonably be expected, or not. Does the composition of the recruits reflect the mix of Protestant and Catholic employees that might be expected, given the catchment area and the balance of population, or not? If it does not, what plan of action and affirmative action is needed to achieve fair participation?
Those questions require the local knowledge of the employer. There can be no absolutely right level of mix; it will vary from work force to work force and from place to place. There is no precise mathematical formula to


recognise whether a broad pattern is roughly right, or markedly out of line. That is something that a fair employer should be well able to assess.

Mr. William Cash: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. King: I shall finish this point first.
Employers can call on the commission to advise on how the review should be carried out. The employer will also have the code of practice, which will guide him on the sort of changes that may be required in his employment practices.
I make no secret of the fact that that is not an easy or precise exercise. I have sought to explain to the House that there are different situations, as anybody who studies these matters knows well. Anybody who has studied the report produced by the Ford Motor Co. at Dunmurry, which analysed the complexities of the issues involved, knows how difficult are some of the issues that must be assessed. But anybody who studies the matter also knows how easily one can tell the difference between those who are genuinely trying and those who are making no attempt at all.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: My right hon. Friend says that the measure builds on the principles of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976. Will he tell the House how many proceedings have been brought under that Act and how often the authorities, acting under the Act, have made specific proposals for changes in the law? Are we simply going through a charade to try to ensure that we receive the MacBride money?

Mr. King: I did not say that the Bill builds on the principles of the 1976 legislation, but rather that it develops the approach to fair employment and tackling discrimination. The Bill carries it further. I would need to check the exact number, but not many proceedings have been brought under the 1976 Act. One of the criticisms that could be made of it would be that it was based on a voluntary approach and involved a declaration of intent. There was a lack of monitoring of that intent and people were able to certify themselves as equal opportunity employers. There was little monitoring to discover whether that intent was being carried through into practice.
We considered moving from the declaration of intent to a declaration of practice, which would be closely observed. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) may have been with us all the way through a succession of consultation documents and White Papers on the matter, and nobody can say that the issue has not been the subject of exhaustive discussion. We decided not to follow that practice but to lay duties on employers first to register if they employ more than 10 people—for the first two years, the relevant number will be 25 people. Once employers register, they will have to monitor the composition of the work force and they will have to submit an annual return. They will also have to review their performance and assess their progress every three years.

Mr. Budgen: How many proceedings have been brought?

Mr. King: That structure—

Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend answer the question?

Mr. King: That is the structure that we have set up. It is a different structure. I have explained to my hon. Friend why there were very few actions and prosecutions—

Mr. Budgen: How many?

Mr. King: I shall find out the exact number, but I know that there were very few. The system did not work.

Mr. Budgen: rose—

Mr. King: I do not intend to be heckled by my hon. Friend. I have tried to give him an honest answer and to explain the background to the problem and why there were very few prosecutions or actions. I explained in my opening remarks that the situation was virtually unchanged since the introduction of the 1976 Act and following the assessment of the standing advisory commission, commissioned by the Government in 1985, the need for more effective action was identified. That is precisely why the Bill has been introduced.
What happens if the outcome of an employer's monitoring and review shows that there is a need for affirmative action? Such action is defined in the Bill as the adoption of practices designed to secure fair participation in employment by Catholics or Protestants and the abandonment of practices which may restrict or discourage fair participation. There have been many calls for that definition to be made more precise. At present, however, it can cover a whole range of different approaches, and we do not wish to exclude options that might be relevant in given circumstances by being more precise. It might depend on—

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. King: My hon. Friend always seeks to intervene 10 seconds before I come to the point.
Affirmative action might involve widening the catchment area, removing obstacles that stop some people applying, the setting of goals and timetables of the ending of haphazard recruiting arrangements. It might involve the setting up of special training facilities. It might, indeed, involve the ending of displays of provocative flags and emblems at work or widening the range of schools contacted. The code of practice may include these and other actions.
I read the article by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) in The Irish Times this morning. He sought to find all sorts of problems and difficulties in the Bill and to pretend that the arrangements would somehow be more restrictive. He tried to make out that the Bill would make more difficult the lives of employers who genuinely sought to operate in a constructive manner. I found the whole article incredible. I profoundly believe that the Bill will lead to greater possibilities, and to more, rather than less, affirmative action.
The hon. Gentleman even referred to Short Brothers plc. I do not know whether he sought to imply that Shorts would not be able to respond positively to any undertakings that it has given, but I find it extremely mischievous of him even to have introduced such a suggestion into his article. I do not believe that it is true. I believe that the Bill will help constructive co-operation between the Fair Employment Commission and employers


who sincerely wish to address the problem of inequality. It is mischievous and damaging to Northern Ireland to suggest otherwise.

Mr. John Hume: Does the Secretary of State accept that affirmative action in employment legislation is not the only affirmative action that is necessary to create fair employment? The best fair employment legislation in the world will not create another job in Strabane. Does he accept that figures produced in the House show that the two constituencies in Great Britain and Northern Ireland with the highest unemployment are my own constituency of Foyle and Belfast, West? Some of us do not think that that is a coincidence and believe that it is the result of action taken by previous Governments of Northern Ireland to starve those areas of investment. If we are to have fair employment, we need affirmative action that will encourage inward investment into areas that have previously been starved, in addition to good fair employment legislation.

Mr. King: I want to address the problem of all areas of high unemployment. Some of the most substantial investment has gone into the Du Pont operation, for instance. I know of the considerable expansion of Desmonds and of the other investments that have been made. I am also conscious that Foyle has quite unacceptably high unemployment. I am also very conscious of the problems of trying to improve employment opportunities in west Belfast, given that some of the activities that take place there are singularly unattractive to potential investors but, as I think the hon. Gentleman will concede, that is not to say that we have not been trying. The whole House welcomed the news of the investment in the old De Lorean plant. I leave it to others to determine whether that is in east Lisburn or west Belfast, but there is no doubt that that can contribute significantly to employment opportunities for many in west Belfast.
I accept the assertion that the creation of jobs must go hand in hand with the legislation if it is to succeed. The Bill will simply not work if we are merely transferring jobs from one community to another, and it must be accompanied by a general improvement in the employment situation.

Mr. Cash: Does my right hon. Friend realise that, although he has been subjected to some carping remarks, some Conservative Members wish to congratulate him on introducing a measure that will genuinely help the people of Northern Ireland in a manner that goes way beyond what many hon. Members have suggested, because the difficulty of obtaining employment on a fair basis lies at the root of many of the present troubles?

Mr. King: I profoundly agree with my hon. Friend. Of all the measures with which I have been associated, measures to establish fair employment and equality of opportunity in employment in Northern Ireland are some of the most important.
Part II of the Bill deals with the withholding of Government grants and public sector contracts from employers who are in breach of any of their major statutory obligations. Disqualification will be determined by the commission, if an employer has been convicted of failure to register or to submit monitoring returns or of

falure to comply with an order or the tribunal. This will be a very powerful sanction, over and above any other penalties for which the employer may be liable.
Public sector bodies will be precluded from accepting tenders from disqualified employers and will require any subcontractors not to be disqualified. Northern Ireland Departments will be authorised to withhold financial assistance from employers who have been disqualified by the Commission. That will apply not just to grants but possibly to loans or investment. Those are tough sanctions, but it would be wrong for any employer who deliberately ignores his obligations to receive any such support from Government or public funds.
I have sought to deal with the main elements of this important Bill. We believe that it will have a real effect in improving employment practices in the Province.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The Secretary of State sounds as if he is beginning to wrap up. Before he resumes his seat, perhaps I can extract some more information from him. I imagine that every right hon. and hon. Member desires fair employment in Northern Ireland: it is not the concern of any individual section of the community. Every section of the community at one time or another has suffered through unfair employment.
The Secretary of State has said that certain encouragement would be given to ensure that a proper balance would be kept in accordance with the balance in the community. I am the chairman of the board of a leisure centre which employs about 140 people in an area which has a very small Roman Catholic community. Roman Catholic employment in that leisure centre is vastly higher than the percentage of Roman Catholics in the community. Those people were appointed because they were the most capable people for the job. They got their jobs on merit, because of their ability. Is there any suggestion that I should redress the balance by making jobs more available to Protestants to reflect the balance of the community?

Mr. King: If the hon. Gentleman reflects on his intervention, he will find the answer. As I said earlier, there has to be good sense in these matters. We cannot talk with absolute precision or lay down a mathematical formula about what should happen. He may have heard me say that a genuine constructive approach is needed. If that is shown, we are halfway there.
We hope that prospects for jobs will continue to improve as they have in the present year, and that that, and the effect of the legislation, at last will produce real and significant change in the differentials of employment and unemployment. The Bill is very timely. If the United Kingdom economy continues to grow, Northern Ireland probably has the best ever opportunity for a fundamental change in its employment prospects. That is the ideal condition in which to achieve a change in balance. We shall keep the operation of the measures under regular review with the help of the commission, and we shall undertake a major review after five years.
Of course I am aware of the criticisms of the Bill, on the one hand from those who believe it goes too far and will open up problems and cause ill feeling between employees wnen none previously existed, and on the other hand that it does not go far enough and has been too lenient with employers.
To the first I say that it is essential for both communities in Northern Ireland that we are and are seen to be a place where there is fairness and equality of opportunity in employment. That is not the case at present, and it cannot be ignored. As for the "not enough" brigade, led by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, they seem to want reverse discrimination, quotas on employers, and the abandonment of the merit principle. That approach has been overwhelmingly rejected not just by employers, but by trade unions, and by the vast majority of people in both communities.
I believe that the Bill has the right approach. It is a powerful measure that can make a real improvement to the whole life of Northern Ireland. It demonstrates without question our determination to promote real equality of opportunity for all the people in Northern Ireland, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I beg to move, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and add instead thereof:
this House declines to give a Second Reading to a Bill which: weakens existing policies in pursuance of fair employment; fails, in the case of political and religious discrimination, to meet the minimum requirements of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 and the Race Relations Act 1976 by forbidding outreach schemes and training programmes designed to achieve equality in employment; does not cover those working less than 16 hours per week, thus excluding thousands of workers, many of whom are female; weakens the existing remedies available to individuals in obtaining redress against discrimination; fails to impose a positive duty upon public and private sector employers to pursue equality in employment; is equivocal over the issues of contract compliance and grant distribution to employers who refuse to adopt fair employment practices and procedures; fails to meet the minimum requirements for fair employment adumbrated by the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and which ignores the key recommendations of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, particularly with respect to the question of goals and timetables for the eradiction of discrimination in employment.
I listened to part of the peroration of the Secretary of State about the great period of expansion that will take place in Northern Ireland. I hope that the 400 people working at Harland and Wolff who received notice today agree with him, despite the fact that steel cutting is no longer to take place at Harland and Wolff.
Twenty-three years ago today, I took my seat in the House. The same day I joined the Campaign for Democracy in Ulster and enrolled in the Campaign for Social Justice. I mention that to show that I have been concerned with discrimination and inequality in Northern Ireland before and since it became a fashionable issue. From the early days of the civil rights movement, a number of Labour Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Orme), recognised that discrimination in employment was a major grievance which had to be remedied. Otherwise, we knew, the pent-up frustration and anger would lead to an outbreak of discontent. At that time, the Government of the day, unfortunately one formed by the Labour party,

did not listen. The outbreak occurred and we are living with the consequences of the inadequacies of successive Governments.
In 1975 a working party chaired by our former colleague Sir William van Straubenzee produced a report which, had it been acted upon, would have achieved real progress. Instead we enacted a watered-down version, the Fair Employment Act 1976. The lack of progress by that Act in reducing the extent of inequality of employment in Northern Ireland has been fully established by the Policy Studies Institute. As the Secretary of State pointed out, the extent of the problem which has to be tackled has been demonstrated by the ratio of Catholic and Protestant male unemployment of 2·5:1, an appalling figure when we consider that the 1976 Act has been in operation for 13 years.

Mr. Beggs: The figure of 2·5 is often quoted, but I am unaware that there has been a properly researched investigation to prove it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will refrain from using that statistic until he can justify it.

Mr. McNamara: I suggest that for the rest of the debate the hon. Gentleman should usefully employ his time by going to the Library and reading the PSI reports. Those reports were funded by the Government—not a Labour Government, a Catholic Government or a Protestant Government. A non-sectarian Government produced that report and those figures. That is the problem.

Mr. Barry Porter: It is a liquorice allsorts Government.

Mr. McNamara: It may well be, but the Government are selling it off to foreigners.
The PSI research discovered that the Fair Employment Act had little effect on employers' practices. The vast majority of employers interviewed for the PSI study believed that the Act had made little if any impact upon their practices and procedures. Job discrimination was still thought to be justifiable by a considerable number of employers. Informal recruitment and appointment procedures contributed to continuing levels of discrimination. Investigation by the Fair Employment Agency did not often result in the setting up of affirmative action programmes by those employers investigated. Nor did investigations appear to have made any impact beyond that of the individual organisation investigated. Very few establishments were formally monitoring the religious composition of the work force. Very few establishments were carrying out any equal opportunity measures.
On the basis of the PSI reports, and the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights report, I had been looking forward to welcoming the Government's Bill as a significant step towards the resolution of that historic and well-founded grievance. In May 1988 I cautiously welcomed the publication of the White Paper on fair employment. I welcomed a number of the aspects of the White Paper as representing substantial progress: the introduction of contract compliance, the requirement to monitor, the prohibition of indirect discrimination, and, although I recognise there is controversy over this matter, the transfer of individual complaints to a specialist division of the industrial tribunals.
To that extent, I recognise that the White Paper is a significant advance on previous legislation. However, I welcomed it cautiously. I made it clear at the time that


whether the Government would be successful in reducing substantially the current inequalities between the two communities in terms of employment depended on the detail of the legislation that emerged. In particular, I stressed that the bench mark against which the Bill would be judged would be the report of the Secretary of State's Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights published in September 1987.
The SACHR report was the result of a remarkable concensus among the commission's members, who included the head of the Northern Ireland CBI, the secretary of the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the ombudsman for Northern Ireland, the head of the Fair Employment Agency, legal experts, business men, academics and others broadly representative of informed opinion in Northern Ireland.
Unlike the brief and superficial dissenting view, the report made 123 recommendations on action needed to promote equality of opportunity. They were not a shopping list of desirable items, some to be taken from the shelf and others to be left there; they were to be taken as a whole. They constituted a coherent strategy. Remove one part of it and the rest is weakened. It is against those recommendations that we can assess the extent to which the Government have failed to deal with the problem.
The most important of the Bill's many defects is its treatment of affirmative action. It was the view of the van Straubenzee committee, of SACHR and of the Labour party that employers must be permitted and encouraged to adopt religion-specific programmes to remedy imbalances in their work forces. If they do not, or if the legal position is so unclear that they are discouraged from doing so, the legislation, I regret, will not succeed. Without affirmative action, the historic patterns of inequality cannot be changed.
There are two main problems with the Bill's affirmative action provisions. First, affirmative action is defined as meaning practices which secure "fair participation" by the two communities in Northern Ireland. That is meaningless because the Bill does not say what is fair. Nor, despite what the Secretary of State said, does it lay down any criteria by which participation could be claimed to be fair. Nor, indeed, if it appeared in a code of practice, would that be enforceable and ensure what was fair. It would be open to any tribunal to impose its own view of what was fair, even that were at odds with equality.
Does one assess fairness in terms of selection procedures or the composition of the work force; in terms of both or of neither? That uncertainty will at best breed litigation. At worst, employers will avoid legal controversy by doing little. [Interruption.] I give way to the Under-Secretary of State.
Incidentally—

Mr. Barry Porter: What was all that about?

Mr. McNamara: The Under-Secretary of State disagreed with me and I, being a polite person, was prepared to give way.
The definition of fair employment is not the one that the Secretary of State included in the White Paper, which instead defined it as action taken to provide a more representative distribution of employment in the work force. What we have in the Bill is even less than the definition that we had in the White Paper.
The second main problem with the Bill's approach to affirmative action is that neither the provisions allowing limited affirmative action nor the provisions empowering the Fair Employment Commission to require employers to engage in affirmative action are treated as exceptions to the duty not to discriminate directly or indirectly on religious grounds. Without such an exception, the duty not to discriminate takes precedence and the ability to take affirmative action is, to that extent, restricted.
The consequences of that approach will be disastrous. The Fair Employment Agency has in the past advocated, and on occasion required, types of affirmative action which might have been challenged successfully under the existing Act. For instance, the recommendations made by the Fair Employment Agency about training programmes for female staff in clearing banks in order to ensure fair representation of Catholics in senior grades would be of doubtful propriety. It was to be hoped that the legality of such measures would be put beyond doubt by the new legislation.
However, instead of resolving the uncertainty in favour of legalising the types of measures currently advocated by the agency, the Bill substantially increases the chance that they will be found to be unlawful. A number of measures currently advocated by the Fair Employment Agency are called into question, a point to which my hon. Friend from Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) will no doubt return if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Bill also renders suspect a number of measures that are clearly lawful under the existing legislation. Measures which have the effect of increasing the chances of under-represented groups can now be challenged for the first time. For example, an employer who gives preference for a job to someone who has been unemployed for a considerable time can now be challenged on the basis of indirect discrimination because that has the effect of disproportionately advantaging the members of the minority community. The employer would have to show that that practice was
justifiable irrespective of religious belief".
The approach taken in the Bill is also incompatible with existing legislation in other areas of anti-discrimination law. Race and sex discrimination law in Great Britain enables employers to engage in equivalent types of affirmative action which the Bill would make unlawful. Employers are permitted to encourage members of under-represented racial groups under section 37 of the Race Relations Act 1976, or of a gender group under section 47 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 to apply for jobs and to provide specially targeted race-specific and gender-specific training. But under the Bill there is to be no religious-specific training. Indeed, last year, the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1988 was amended by the Government to make it easier for employers to engage in affirmative action to the benefit of women, which they will now make illegal in the context of religion.
As if that were not bad enough, the absence of an exemption for affirmative action under the Bill jeopardises existing lawful affirmative action under the sex discrimination order. Certain affirmative action measures designed to improve the representation of women in the work force may also have the effect of benefiting a greater proportion of, for instance, Catholics than Protestants, or Protestants than Catholics. The Fair Employment Agency has recognised that in its report on the investigation into the


Northern Ireland Civil Service. However, under the Bill such affirmative action for women could be rendered unlawful. Indeed, there is some evidence that clause 50 is in breach of the EC equal treatment directive. I find it amazing that the Government could have been so ill advised as to present their proposals on affirmative action to the House.
The effect of the highly restrictive, internally inconsistent and incompetent approach to affirmative action in the Bill is of considerable importance to industry in Northern Ireland.
The legal uncertainty over the scope of lawful affirmative action in Northern Ireland is already generating great confusion among employers. Some employers are willing to redress the inequality of opportunity in Northern Ireland. Research conducted by the Policy Studies Institute found that a substantial number of employers would favour special recruitment drives to attract members of the minority community when they are under-represented in employment. That could have a significant effect when one considers that 100,000 jobs change hands in Northern Ireland every year.
There was also considerable support among employers for special training programmes to increase the representation of the minority community in jobs where they are currently under-represented. Yet those measures will not be made unlawful. The Bill will cut the feet from under progressive employers, and it is patently unfair to them. The Secretary of State may disagree, but if it is religious-specific, it is illegal.
Nor should we forget that, whether we like it or not, there is an important north American dimension to the issue. As it happens, I do not like it. The Government's proposals would be taken more seriously if they had acted of their own free will rather than waited until international and domestic pressure forced them to legislate. I for one find it depressing and distasteful that international pressure should be necessary to oblige the Government to take action to uphold such a basic human right as equality of opportunity in employment.
The Bill will do nothing to reduce the possibility of American disinvestment. I am opposed to disinvestment. It would be a disaster for the Northern Ireland economy. Far from that being a mischievous statement, the Secretary of State knows that, ever since I had the honour of speaking on behalf of the Labour party on this issue, I have been concerned about what has been happening in north America. If disinvestment occurs, much of the responsibility will lie with the Government and their failure to seize the opportunity presented by the Bill. The extent to which the Bill constrains employers from taking affirmative action will increase the problems of Northern Ireland employees with commercial and investment links to the United States. There is a considerable risk of escalation in the conflict between the United States requirements of what these employers should be doing and what they would be permitted to do lawfully in Northern Ireland.
The first casualty could be one of the Province's major employers, Shorts. If the Minister thinks that I was being mischievous about this, let us consider the facts. If the Bill as drafted becomes law, it is unlikely that Shorts will be able to fulfil its undertakings to the United States

Department of the Army. I think the Secretary of State is shaking his head in disagreement. Let us consider religious-specific training. I happen to have the agreement with me. It is signed by Mr. Stone in his letter about what Mr. McNulty had said. Mr. Stone was the Under-Secretary of the Army. He wrote:
The company will design and implement what in the United States would be termed a set-aside".
That is specific for Catholics. It is illegal.
Shorts Bros. presently has a total of approximately 7,000 workers. Turnover rate is about 3 per cent. per year, meaning that the company hires about 350 new employees per year. As a baseline for 1988 the company expects to achieve a rate of 17·5 per cent. for Catholic new hires in relation to total knew hires. In 1989 the goal will be to achieve a rate of 25 per cent., and in 1990 the goal will be to achieve a rate of 35 per cent.
Shorts has also undertaken to the Fair Employment Agency to approach Catholic schools to encourage more applications from Catholics. These are specific and religiously designed affirmative programmes. These committments will be unlawful under the Bill.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers): The hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House. The Bill does not preclude any of the legitimate outreach measures of the kind that Shorts and other good employers have already introduced. The hon. Gentleman may not like to be corrected, but I am sure he will welcome that reassurance.

Mr. McNamara: Will the Minister say specifically that firms may recruit percentages of Catholics in new hirings: that the set-aside as agreed in the Shorts agreement will be legal under the Bill in the terms in which it was agreed; and that Shorts may go to Catholic schools to encourage people to train? If he is prepared to give those three undertakings, he is then saying that there is specific recruitment for Catholics on a religious basis. On that ground, those of us who read the Bill and did not find that in it will be delighted to know that it is included.
On the other hand, the measures agreed by Shorts are seen by many as a classic example of the type of affirmative action that is needed to rectify historical inequalities in relation to the Bill. The prospects of other firms taking similar action are seriously diminished.

Mr. Budgen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a difficulty in understanding the Bill and deciding whether it is merely a sham or has the teeth that he wants it to have is that all such questions are left to the commission? We in this House are not allowed to decide what is discrimination or how it shall be enforced. Wide discretion is given to the commission: it may or may not do the things that he desires.

Mr. McNamara: I shall be coming to that point later. There are certain actions which the commission would be precluded from taking, and clause 50 and the clauses relating to training, outreach and so on will catch Shorts and what that company has been doing.
The same provisions making Shorts' undertakings unlawful would have a similar effect on a significant element of a Bill introduced into the United States House of Representatives by Congressman Donnelly. It would be in conflict with the law of Northern Ireland if it and the Bill now before this House were adopted in their current forms, because clause 3 of Congressman Donnelly's Bill would reduce tax credits for United States firms operating in Northern Ireland which failed to take certain steps,


including the introduction of affirmative programmes designed to give under-represented groups better access to employment and training opportunities.
If the measure now before this House inhibits affirmative action to the extent that American employers cannot comply with the provisions of United States law, that will be yet more disincentive to the establishment and expansion of American-owned firms in Northern Ireland.
But, not content with turning the clock back with regard to affirmative action, the Bill also damages the rights of individuals to seek redress. It reduces the existing rights of those discriminated against compared with their rights under the existing Fair Employment Act. There are two major steps backwards. First, the level of damages is reduced. The new maximum will be £8,500, which falls well short of what the Fair Employment Agency has been awarding and negotiating on behalf of individuals under the existing Act. Secondly, the provisions requiring an employer to engage, re-engage or reinstate a victim of discrimination will now be repealed.
In other words, the Bill not only involves a retreat from existing remedies and is a repudiation of the work of the standing advisory commission; it also involves a retreat from the proposals published in the Government's own consultative document and in the White Paper.
In the consultative document, for example, the Government proposed the adoption of a form of contract compliance similar to that adopted in the United States. Under that system, contract compliance has the function of imposing on a contractor a number of "best practice" requirements which are additional to those imposed on the mass of employers directly under the rest of the legislation.
The Bill adopts a much more limited approach to contract compliance. Under the Bill, contract compliance has a more limited function. Instead of being a positive measure designed to promote the use of best practices in fair employment, it will serve merely as a last resort sanction to be used on those employers who do not comply with the minimum standards which the legislation imposes on the mass of employers. It has turned the matter upside down. This is an important retreat both from the Department of Economic Development's consultative paper proposals and from the standing advisory commission.
The consultative document also promised to introduce an explicit legal duty on public sector employers to provide equality of opportunity. Not only has that proposal vanished, but the Bill provides weaker sanctions against recalcitrant public employers than it does against private sector employers. When we consider that 13 local authorities have refused to sign the existing fair employment declaration and that public bodies have been the subject of adverse reports from the Fair Employment Agency, the weakness of the Bill is even more apparent.
The Bill also contains a series of retreats from proposals set out in the White Paper. I have mentioned one already—the affirmative action provisions—but there are more. The White Paper promised to help the individual by providing a questionnaire procedure to ease the task of gathering evidence faced by individuals complaining of discrimination. That is not included in the Bill.
The concept of goals and timetables for the reduction of inequality has also mysteriously disappeared during the preparation of the Bill. It is no good putting that in a code of practice which is not enforceable. The White Paper promised to make available to hon. Members a draft code

of practice at the same time as the Bill was being considered. We do not have that code of practice. As the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) pointed out, we are being asked to buy a pig in a poke. That is what it amounts to. We do not have the evidence to reach some of the conclusions that the Secretary of State would like us to reach. That evidence is not in the Bill and we do not have the code.
Much of what should be in the backbone of the Bill is relegated to the status of secondary legislation. Not only has the code not appeared, but in a number of crucial areas of the Bill there is a complete lack of detail on which to form an assessment of the Government's proposals. Much of the Bill merely empowers the Northern Ireland Department of Economic Development to draw up regulations and orders in the future, after the Bill has become law.
I took the same view as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West on the right to silence issue and the policies that were involved with that. If we a re not enabled to amend the legislation, we are weakening the power of the House because we either accept or reject the lot. In several major clauses of the Bill the details are to be determined in regulations. These are significant areas, such as monitoring, contract compliance and the procedures of the fair employment tribunal. When they emerge, these regulations will not be subject to the full parliamentary scrutiny that the Bill will attract. If the use of affirmative action can be so signally mishandled when it is clear that it will be subject to effective parliamentary scrutiny, how much confidence can we have in the use by the Department of those delegated powers when only limited scrutiny, without the power of amendment, is possible?
It is a contempt of the House that the Government should expect us to consider the Bill in the absence of detail about what the code and regulations will contain. The absence of such detail will effectively stifle proper parliamentary scrutiny of the Bill. We should remember that the Northern Ireland Office has considerably more autonomy with regard to parliamentary scrutiny than its British counterpart.
There are two possible reasons why the Government may have chosen this course of action. One is that they do not want effective scrutiny of the Bill. The second possibility, which is perhaps closer to the truth, is that the Government have not decided the details of the measures, even at this late stage, and even in the central areas of monitoring and contract compliance. We have no evidence to assure us that the Department of Economic Development, that poacher now turned gamekeeper, is seriously committed to bringing forth tough measures to provide full equality of opportunity. Nor do we believe that it is sufficiently competent to work through the detail, even if it has the will to do so. How else can we explain a situation where key provisions of the Bill have such bizarre unintended effects as to risk a breach of the European laws, and where such a measure came to be printed and put before the House?

Mr. Budgen: Will the hon. Member give his assessment, on behalf of the Labour party, of the workings of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976? My right hon. Friend either could not or would not tell the House about it. If it was obvious by 1985 that the 1976 Act was not working and that under the Anglo-Irish Agreement Her Majesty's Government had this matter brought to their


attention, most kindly, by the Americans, perhaps the legislation would have been brought forward a little sooner. I wonder why something so important has been so delayed.

Mr. McNamara: I agree with the hon. Gentleman to the extent that I, too, wonder why it has been delayed. He is perhaps giving too much credit to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I believe that what so wonderfully concentrated the mind of the Government on this matter was the MacBride campaign in north America. All the hon. Gentleman has to do is look at the incidence and mounting of the MacBride campaign, how state by state fell to it, and how the money and reources, of which the Fair Employment Commission had been starved, suddenly increased as the momentum of that campaign increased. That is a good sign of the origin of some of the pressure upon the Government. That is why I find it distasteful. This is a human rights matter which has been tackled by a British Government who seized the opportunity when they saw some of the difficulties under which the Fair Employment Commission was labouring. Those difficulties arose because it was starved of funds until the time of the MacBride campaign.
I believe that the Government would have been better employed by saying to the Americans, especially when they had the report from the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, "This statement contains everything, and more, that you could ever want in your campaigning. It will not be voluntary and will cover not just north American firms but the whole gamut of employers and all investments. We will legislate on that and ensure that your campaign is as nothing." Unfortunately, as the Secretary of State said, he has failed to implement the spirit and the letter of the SACHR report. Because of that, MacBride will not go away, and will continue to spread like measles across the United States.
I believe that, if the Government are serious about fair employment, they should demonstrate their commitment by ensuring that responsibility for the implementation of the legislation should be at the highest level, in the hands of the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Office. We shall be tabling amendments to that effect in Committee. We do not believe it should have been left to the Department of Economic Development and the Minister responsible for industry because of the conflicts of interest.
We also believe that there must be effective monitoring of the new legislation, and a clear goal and a target for assessing its progress. The Secretary of State should ensure that an adequate administrative structure exists within his own Department to enable him to do that. Legislation alone is not sufficient.
My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) has already reported on how the inward investment programme is meeting this problem. Existing Government programmes and future policy development must also take more fully into account the equality of opportunity dimension, which clearly was not taken into account in the past. The Government have brought forward no effective proposals to ensure that this will happen in future.
Unfortunately, the defects identified above are accompanied by a series of flaws, which will be dealt with

in greater depth in Committee. Some of them must be mentioned now, including, first, the most important section 42 national security exemption. The failure to provide clearly for independent scrutiny of the national security exemption is a glaring gap in the Government's proposal.
Let me give an instructive and farcical case to show the way in which section 42 has worked. A member of my union, a scaffolder, was employed by the Northern Ireland Electricity Service at Coolkeeragh power station near Derry. He then sought to transfer and get employment at Ballylumford power station. He was turned down. When he asked the Fair Employment Agency to investigate it, a section 42 order was issued to halt the investigation. He could not be employed there on the ground of national security. That was a very sensible decision to take, because in the meantime the scaffolder had been cleared to work at the Army headquarters in Lisburn, right opposite the GOC's headquarters. So much for section 42 and the way it has been used to hide discrimination.
The exclusion of part-time employees from the monitoring provision of those who work for 16 hours a week is another glaring exemption, for this reason among others. Some of them are among the poorest and most dispossessed Catholics and Protestants. The majority of them work for fewer than 16 hours a week, and many are women. The significance of this fact is all the greater when one considers that the eastern health and social board has 30,000 employees, 13,000 of whom are part-timers who will be excluded. The majority of them are women struggling to bring up their families. Whichever community they come from, they will not be covered by this provision.
There are in addition restrictions on the monitoring of applications, which is rather like the counting of green and orange trees instead of seeing what they can be used for to get some effective affirmative action. There is, too, the compromising of the independence of the Fair Employment Commission.
I regret to say that the Labour party cannot welcome this seriously flawed Bill. At a conservative estimate, it fails to meet more than 60 per cent. of the recommendations of the standing advisory commission's report. It ignores substantially the recommendation of the Fair Employment Agency and the Irish Congress of Trades Unions. In significant respects, it is less effective and far-reaching than the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act that it replaces, and it is even a retreat from the commitments in the less than detailed White Paper of last year. No doubt, in time, we shall discover what led the Government to back down from their commitments. Whoever is responsible has a lot to answer for. People will have to live with the consequences of the failure to create equality of opportunity.
If the Bill is enacted in its present form, it will set the clock back. For the reasons that I have enumerated, the Labour party has tabled a reasoned amendment. If it is defeated, we shall vote against giving the Bill a Second Reading. We shall seek to amend the Bill in Committee. Our motive is to ensure that the eventual legislation will achieve the objective of fair employment.
The Government are out of step, and unfortunately guided by considerations other than those which deserve the most urgent attention. The Labour party has been, and will continue to be, guided on this issue by the moderate and reasonable proposals that have been put forward by


the standing advisory commission, the Fair Employment Commission and the Irish Congress of Trades Unions. They will be our three bench marks. Our concerns are also shared by the SDLP, as is apparent from the reasoned amendment that its Members have tabled.
We are determined to ensure that the effects of the Bill are clearly and unequivocally brought to the Government's attention. There is still time for them to see sense. We are genuinely and sincerely anxious that they should do so. The Labour party believes, and is indeed convinced, that failure to tackle the massive inequalities between Catholics and Protestants will drive away north American investment, which is vital to the economy of Northern Ireland. That is why we wish to see it.
Today we should have been debating a measure which would offer hope to the poor and dispossessed in Northern Ireland that for them the constitutional road to reform could deliver tangible results. Beyond them there are the others who suffer the consequences of political instability and violence, resulting from deprivation and inequalities. Despite extensive research and analysis of the massive problem of structural inequality in employment, and expert advice on the responses needed to tackle that problem, the Government have chosen to present the House with a flawed and patently ineffective Bill. All those placing their faith, as I do, in constitutional methods of achieving social justice will be gravely disappointed.
We hope that when the Bill comes to the House for Third Reading it will live up to its proud title of fair employment in Northern Ireland. For the Government it is still not too late to amend many of the proposals. We hope that they will do so in the interests of fair employment, of equity and of the individuals who live in the Six Counties.

Mr. James Kilfedder: I listened attentively to the speech of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and to his replies to interventions from the few hon. Friends who were sitting behind him. I remain totally unconvinced about the merits of this legislation. Indeed, it speaks eloquently of the Bill that at any one time at most five Tory Back Benchers had bothered to come into the Chamber to listen to their right hon. Friend and to show their support for the Bill.

Mr. Budgen: Support?

Mr. Kilfedder: It is already being pointed out to me that at least one of those five hon. Members detests the Bill. It is remarkable in a Parliament with such a tremendous Tory majority so few Tory Back Benchers should be present in the Chamber. Where are they? It is like the debate we had last week on Northern Ireland, when very few hon. Members seemed to be interested in the legislation under discussion on that occasion.
The Secretary of State might have strengthened what he described as the moral case for the Bill if he had announced that the Government intended to introduce similar legislation for the rest of the United Kingdom to combat religious, racial and political discrimination. Hon. Members should consider this carefully. I refer the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, whether they are here to support or to criticise this awful legislation, to an article in The Times today by the distinguished chairman of the Runnymede Trust, Dr. E. J. B. Rose. He stated:

The greatest single contribution this government could make to improve race relations would be to attack black unemployment, which is twice as high as the rate for whites.
He went on to offer cogent reasons why there should be such legislation, but there has not been a word from the Government about that.

Mr. Budgen: The hon. Gentleman is often more observant of American opinion than I am. Has he any information about whether the Americans have been advising the Government on the necessity of bringing forward similar legislation in the west midlands? As the Americans are so extraordinarily generous in the advice that they volunteer to us, they may have a view about the introduction of such legislation in England.

Mr. Kilfedder: I think that American politicians view this country as a place which has not only lost an empire but needs direction from the great and brilliant minds of Washington, who are no doubt helping the Government as much as possible—just as the politicians from the Irish Republic are guiding the hand of the Government through the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
I have the honour to represent the constituency of North Down where there is no complaint about religious discrimination. I and my constituents are unequivocally and totally opposed to religious discrimination of any kind in employment, housing or any other aspect of life. There is a growing anxiety among employees on the shop floor and in offices who have received individual notices demanding bluntly that the employee should state his or her religion. This creates grave disquiet among people who have worked loyally for firms for many years. They fear, no doubt rightly, that the hand of bureaucracy will be upon their firm and that in time they may find themselves out of their jobs.
The Bill is divisive in an area such as mine—I speak of no other area, as I know that there are problems in other parts of Northern Ireland—where good relations have existed between Protestants and Roman Catholics for a long time. I do not wish to see division, but I fear that the Bill will lead to increased division.

Mr. Marlow: Is there not a possibility—to put it no higher—that this confidential personal information could find its way, sadly, into the hands of an Opposition politician who would only too avidly give it full media coverage and all the confidentiality would be lost?

Mr. Kilfedder: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to that, but I will not speculate. All I can say is that those notices, which imply that unless the information is supplied the person will be out of a job, will create a state of affairs which will not help good community relations in North Down. I hope that I shall be proved wrong as I wish to see good community relations maintained. The future of Northern Ireland lies in Protestants and Roman Cotholics coming together—that is the way forward—but this legislation will not contribute anything to that process.
I should have thought that it was in the hands of the Government to do something to ease the position. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) referred to Strabane. I do not know whether he mentioned the percentage of unemployment there, but it is appallingly high. A few months ago I suggested to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that Northern Ireland Members of all political opinions should go to America to appeal to American business men to set up factories in areas such as


Strabane, West Belfast or anywhere else where they would help to end the misery of the dole queue. That suggestion was not taken up. It is in the hands of the Government to create employment but, as the shadow spokesman the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has already told us, some 450 people in Harland and Wolff have already received their notice. The Government, by their policies, are driving people out of jobs.
Through this legislation, the Government are branding the Protestant people of Northern Ireland as religious bigots, in the eyes of Great Britain and throughout the world. I reject the charge. I believe that whatever legislation is brought forward should be designed to help bring the people together, providing jobs and more and better homes.
I am keeping my remarks brief to allow every hon. Member to participate—especially the Secretary of State's colleagues, whose opinions I am sure that he is anxious to hear. As an elected representative, I face three options. First, I could vote against the Bill as being a bad Bill on any number of grounds, some of them enumerated by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North, who pointed out serious flaws. To vote against it, however, would falsely imply that I was against fair employment, which would be contrary to my political beliefs.
Secondly, I could vote in favour of the Bill, but that would imply that I concurred with the enemies of loyalist Ulster, who are delighted to have more ammunition to attack that part of the United Kingdom. Hon. Members may rest assured that people in the United States will say that the Government have been forced to bring in this legislation to deal with an intolerable situation.
I notice that the Secretary of State is laughing at the plight of the people of Northern Ireland.

Mr. Tom King: Don't be such an idiot.

Mr. Kilfedder: The right hon. Gentleman says that I should not be such an idiot. I am proud to have any nasty remark made to me by him, because I know that if the people of Ulster have to judge between him and me they will not go through the barbed wire at Stormont castle to applaud him. They can come to my home, as they do, and tell me that I am right, on this as on other occasions.
The Secretary of State may laugh, but the people of Ulster have had any number of Secretaries of State. Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland come and go, but they do not affect the lives of ordinary people much because they do not live in the community and are not part of it, and when they go they are forgotten.
My final option is to abstain, and on occasions such as this I regret that there is no Lobby where I can register my total opposition to this pathetic piece of legislation.

Rev. Martin Smyth: You were not present, Madam Deputy Speaker, when the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) said that during Question Time members of the minority parties asked their questions and then left. As a member of such a party, I stayed for the whole of Question Time and am still here. When an hon. Member has been called, however, he sometimes has to go out on other business. Which would be the more heinous—to do that, or to absent oneself from

a debate and then roll in to obey the Whips without having listened to the arguments or considered the impact of a Bill on the people whom it concerns?
I believe in fair employment. I gave evidence before the van Straubenzee committee. When asked my view on discrimination I said that it was biblical, and I stand by that:
do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.
If anyone present in this gathering claims that he does not discriminate, he condemns himself. Each of us must discriminate, whether in choosing a hat, a holiday or even, sometimes, a job.

Mr. Gow: Or a wife.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Yes—and some folk would have been wise to exercise more discrimination.
With fair employment, the merit principle must be paramount. Unfortunately, in the case of Northern Ireland, I am not convinced that that is so. Replying to a question from me on 3 May, the Under-Secretary of State for Employment said that he was not prepared to accept the merit principle in Northern Ireland. He dismissed our point by saying:
while the system is appropriate in Northern Ireland, we see no reason to extend it to the mainland."—[Official Report, 3 May 1988; Vol. 132, c. 713.]
I had said, as the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) has said, that if fair employment measures were needed in Northern Ireland they were also needed in Great Britain.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: I do not seek to protect only the Scots. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is disturbing to find evidence of religious discrimination in Civil Service organisations and in nationalised companies on the mainland? If the legislation is good enough for Northern Ireland, despite all the difficulties, Ministers should at least investigate religious discrimination on the mainland, especially in the public sector.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I accept what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I will deal with his point more broadly in a moment.
As I made plain in a letter to the Prime Minister on 17 May last year, I stand by the merit principle. I also said:
It is my belief that you have been forced to jettison your long-held view that employment should be by merit, and that a need to appease republican sentiment in Eire, the USA and elsewhere, has led to you allowing other considerations to determine employment policy in Northern Ireland.
Why do I say that the legislation should be applied to Great Britain? On 15 March 1988, a headline in The Independent read:
Blacks' work prospects `no better than 20 years ago'
The paper claimed in a headline the following day:
Black teachers 'face jobs prejudice
I find a major discrepancy in the answers given to me by the Minister for the Civil Service about employment opportunities. For example, in the Cabinet Office, which should be setting us an example, 451 top civil servants' grades show only four from the ethnic minorities. In the Home Office, only 563 of the top 4,278 employees are women.

Mr. Peter Archer: I entirely agree that we need more effective action in Great Britain to deal with discrimination, and we shall welcome the hon.


Gentleman's support when the time comes to debate that. Is he suggesting, however, that it follows from that that there is no need to deal with discrimination in Northern Ireland?

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the right hon. and learned Gentleman's ability to listen and to reason, but I did not say that. I said that I believed that the legislation should extend to the United Kingdom if it is needed in Northern Ireland on the grounds that we claimed for it. The same prima facie grounds exist in Great Britain as are set out for Northern Ireland. I am prepared to argue that perceptions are not necessarily accurate, because there are other reasons why people are employed beyond the fact of their colour, religion or sex—, I should like to think so.
I notice a conflict between this Bill and the recently passed Local Government Act. I query the logic of such a Bill. The Secretary of State referred to contract compliance and recently introduced legislation which outlawed councils in Great Britain from using contract compliance lists and questions to promote their policies. Yet the Government are introducing this for the private sector in Northern Ireland.
One way of determining religious affiliations in Northern Ireland has developed in relation to the schools of primary choice. As a result, there are Protestants in Northern Ireland who, for reasons best known to themselves, have attended Roman Catholic schools, and Roman Catholics who have attended controlled sector schools. They are perceived as Roman Catholics or Protestants according to the school that they attend regardless of their religion.
I recently discovered that an alleged spokesman for the Fair Employment Agency had claimed that many Shi'ite Moslems worked for Belfast council. I say "alleged spokesman" because the figures have not been released—Belfast council has not forwarded the report to the agency.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) will realise that perception can be wrong. I read a book in which he was described as the Protestant spokesman of the Labour party. In one of Alistair Maclean's books—

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am renowned for my impartiality on all these issues.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I should like to be able to agree with the hon. Gentleman, but he showed his pedigree when he set out his arguments against the Bill earlier today. Impartiality is not one of his noteworthy points.
Alastair Maclean reveals the problem of perception when he writes about rifles for the Protestant IRA. Anyone who seeks to provide legislation to govern events in Northern Ireland should do so on sounder grounds than perceptions.
The basic assumption underlying the Bill is that, if there is an imbalance between the numbers of Roman Catholic and Protestants who are unemployed, the cause is always and exclusively religious discrimination on the part of employers. A bar owner in Sandy Row was approached by a man who said, "I am an Orange man, can I have a job?" The answer was, "I don't care if you are a black man—I am looking for a barman". A sensible employer will

always employ the person who is best equipped and suited for the job. If he employed people purely on the grounds of religion, he would soon be out of business.
No doubt imbalances exist, but I query the accuracy of the figures cited even on the authority of the Policy Studies Institute. I do not doubt that there are more unemployed Roman Catholics than Protestants, but it is not proven that religious discrimination is the sole or even the main cause. If I am right, the Bill will not be capable of putting matters right. It will merely build up expectations that cannot be fulfilled and, in the process, generate more bitterness.

Ms. Diane Abbott: The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he does not believe that the high levels of unemployment among Catholics are due to religious discrimination. We should all be interested to hear him outline in general rather than anecdotal terms the real reasons for unemployment among Catholics in Northern Ireland.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I hope to come to that if I have time.
On 27 January, the Irish News—not a Unionist paper—contained the headline:
Protestant graduates find jobs come easier.
That partially answers the hon. Lady's question, but the paper gives the answer. It is found in a survey conducted by two academics, one in the university of Ulster and the other in Queen's university—both of which have from time to time provided work for the Fair Employment Agency. The survey shows that of 2,000 graduates—56 per cent. Protestant and 43 per cent. Catholic—who started their courses in 1985, the two groups opted for contrasting higher education courses, which explains the significant difference in the type of work that they later pursued. The Protestants mainly embarked on courses in science, technology and health science studies; the others showed a preference for arts, humanities and the social sciences. My point is that the choices that people make—this was mentioned in Question Time today—will have an impact on their ultimate jobs and economic opportunities.

Mr. Jim Marshall: Is the hon. Gentleman deploying the argument usually applied to school education—that Protestant children tend to receive one sort of education and Catholic children another? Does that continue through into higher education, so that one group is equipped to do one set of tasks and another group to do a different set?

Rev. Martin Smyth: That is not necessarily my argument. I am dealing specifically with higher qualifications. Graduates are a particular group. However, if the hon. Gentleman investigates the matter he may discover that there is a considerable difference of emphasis at different levels. I quoted the article at length to make that point.
To answer the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) further, the most striking example of the discrepancies that affect unemployment is to be found in the security forces and in firms that provide them with services. The report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, dealing with fair employment, stated:
A further contributory factor to the continuing differences in employment and unemployment is the reluctance of many Catholics to take up employment


opportunities in the police and other security services. These forms of employment currently provide up to 30,000 jobs in Northern Ireland, amounting to more than 5 per cent. of total employment, an are heavily dominated by Protestants. It is clear that greater equality in the distribution of these jobs would make a significant contribution to reducing differentials in employment or unemployment.
The Opposition have already called that report in evidence this evening.
No one would argue that the employment pattern in this area is due to religious discrimination on the part of the Northern Ireland police authority or the Ministry of Defence. I have no doubt that the RUC and the UDR would be delighted to get more Catholics to join. I pay tribute, as I have done in the past, to the members of the Roman Catholic community who have served in those forces and have made supreme sacrifices as a result of their loyalty to the country of which they are citizens.

Mr. Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, because there is no open encouragement, either from the politicians who represent the nationalist community or from their church leaders, to join the RUC and security forces, employment opportunities are being lost?

Rev. Martin Smyth: I agree with my hon. Friend on that. If the jobs were taken up, between 10,000 and 15,000 jobs would go to Roman Catholics which would normally go by default to Protestants. It has been said that there are two and a half times more Catholic males unemployed than Protestant males. That may be so, but the problem is that we can find no evidence to support it. To the best of my knowledge, that statistic is not based on a monitoring exercise of the unemployed. So far as I know, there are no precise statistics of Roman Catholic and Protestant unemployment or of the religious breakdown of the total economically active. Table 3.2 of the SACHR Report estimates the number of Roman Catholics unemployed as between 40,000 and 50,000 out of a total of 140,000 to 160,000 economically active Roman Catholic males. It estimates that there are 25,000 to 35,000 unemployed Protestant males out of a total of 240,000 to 260,000 economically active Protestant males. Those figures are based on the 1981 census and I presume that the margins of error arise from the fact that 19 per cent. of people refused to give their religion in their census returns. The figures, too, are obviously well out of date. I cite those figures to show that our knowledge of the actual number unemployed on religious grounds is less than perfect. I am convinced that our knowledge of the reason why a differential exists between the two groups is less precise. If, as I suspect, that reason has in large measure nothing to do with religious discrimination by employers, supporters of the Bill will be disappointed when it fails to erode the differential significance.

Ms. Abbott: Since my first intervention, I have been trying to follow the thread of the hon. Gentleman's argument carefully, but he seems to be making two divergent points. On the one hand, he says that the figures are wrong, and that is why a huge level of Catholic unemployment has been shown. On the other, he appears to be arguing that Catholics tend to have a preference for studying arts subjects and will not join the police force. With the greatest respect, a preference for the arts and the classics, and a reluctance to join the police force, would

not on their own account for the fact that two and a half times more Catholics are unemployed than Protestants. Will the hon. Gentleman elaborate his argument a little further?

Rev. Martin Smyth: I should love to elaborate on my argument. I have a fair bit of material and if I had your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I could go on until 10 o'clock, although I reckon that the Whips would be sending me notes telling me to stop at such and such a time. I have made the point, and I hope that the hon. Lady will understand that I want to be concise. I have argued that the grounds for differences in unemployment are not necessarily those of religion. I have made the point that academic studies, personal preferences, job opportunities and such like have an effect on unemployment. I believe, however, that, above all, the unwillingness of leaders of the Roman Catholic Church and the SDLP to give a lead to people to join the security forces has added to the large number of Roman Catholics who could be in work but are not.

Rev. William McCrea: Does my hon. Friend accept that the statistics that have been used as the basis for much of the argument about there being two and a half times more Catholics unemployed than Protestants are part of the propaganda of the Provisional IRA and its political wing, Sinn Fein? Those statistics have not been proved, and I should be glad to hear my hon. Friend prove them. They have been trotted out as though they were true by hon. Members in all parts of the House without any proof.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. In answer to the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott), I was about to state that I am questioning the validity and accuracy of the figures.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: May I give the hon. Gentleman the information that he requires before he goes on to his next point?

Rev. Martin Smyth: If the hon. Gentleman can give me authentic information, and tell me where the statistics have come from, I shall be happy to give way.

Mr. McGrady: The statistics are contained in table 3, paragraph 1 of the report of the independent Policy Studies Institute dated 1987. The source is "Equality and Inequality in Northern Ireland: Employment and Unemployment 1983–85". It states that there are 14·9 per cent. unemployed male Protestants and 35·1 per cent. unemployed male Catholics, which is 2·4 times as high. There are 10·2 per cent. unemployed Protestant women and 15·8 per cent. umemployed Catholic women—one and a half times as high.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I am not arguing about where the figures came from. I have actually referred to those figures. I said that we had not yet had evidence of how the statistics were obtained. I believe that figures often lie as well as liars figure.
On the question of equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome, I understand that clause 12(2)(a) will empower the commission to issue directions to employers to take whatever action the commission deems to be reasonable to promote equality of opportunity. There is nothing in the Bill to indicate when it would be appropriate for the commission to issue such directions. In


other words, in what circumstances is it reasonable to conclude that equality of opportunity is not being afforded by an employer and remedial action is called for? Our only guide on this matter is the past behaviour of the Fair Employment Agency which is due to be transformed, under the Bill, into the Fair Employment Commission.
I believe that the practice of the Fair Employment Agency in past investigations of employment patterns has left a great deal to be desired. To the best of my knowledge, the Fair Employment Agency has always taken any divergence between the religious balance in a work force and that in the catchment area of the firm to be conclusive proof of the failure of the employer to afford equality of opportunity. In other words, if the firm's work force does not reflect exactly the religious balance of the working population in the catchment area, the employer is inevitably found guilty of discrimination. No other explanation is allowed.
That conclusion is arrived at despite the clear statement in the Department of Economic Development guide, which states in paragraph 3.3:
Equality of opportunity is not the same as equality of outcome. Individuals have different qualifications, ability and potential ability. What is important is that everyone is given the same chance to offer their talents to prospective employers.
The guide says in paragraph 4.39:
the fact that the proportion of a religious grouping in a workforce (or part of a workforce) is lower than the proportion of that grouping in the catchment area does not necessarily imply malpractice.
I stand to be corrected, but so far as I am aware the Fair Employment Agency has always assumed that if a religious grouping is under-represented, malpractice has been and is taking place. I should like an assurance that the Government will accept the principle that there can be equality of opportunity without equality of results. I should also like an assurance that an employer will not be pilloried by the commission for failing to offer equality of opportunity if the religious balance of his work force deviates by a few per cent. from what the commission deems to be the religious balance in the catchment area. In the past, one of the difficulties seems to have been that the Fair Employment Agency regularly moved the goal posts when dealing with a catchment area and the numbers that ought to be employed from it.
There are many other things that I should like to say, but my colleagues and other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate and there will be another time, perhaps, to deploy further arguments.

Mr. Barry Porter: I am sorry that the Secretary of State has departed for his dinner. He must have thought he was friendless in this place, and he is well aware that on occasion I have expressed mild reservations about the policy followed by the Government in relation to the Province of Ulster. I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State will give him the welcome information that I shall be voting for the Bill tonight. It may be interesting to hon. Members to know why I am in favour of this Bill.
I have listened to hon. Member's statistical arguments. There seems to me to be no doubt that the 2·5:1 ratio exists. The only matter in dispute is how that ratio comes about. No one would argue that it all comes about as a result of religious discrimination, but it would be naive of

anyone with the slightest knowledge of the Province not to argue that some of it comes about as a result of religious discrimination. I believe that to be the case, and if any hon. Gentleman would like to argue the point I should like to hear from him now. There is that problem; it would be foolish and naive to pretend that there is not. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Prove it."] I have been asked to prove it. I cannot prove it. I cannot prove the negative either. But we should proceed on the basis that that element exists, and it is the duty and obligation of the Government to do something about it. The Fair Employment Act 1976 quite clearly has not had the effect that it was supposed to have.
All that the Bill purports to do is to stiffen that legislation. Of course, there is an element in this legislation of public relations for overseas compsumption. Again it would be naive to deny that. We would want North American money coming in and we would want investment from other parts of the world. And people in North America or elsewhere who believe, rightly or wrongly, that there is religious discrimination in employment in the Province which leads to more difficulties and foments trouble are unlikely to invest. So we are making the statement by this legislation that we are trying to do something about a perceived ill.
What is the matter with that? I do not object to saying to Americans or to anybody else that we are trying to do something about a part of the United Kingdom in which something is happening that should not be happening. It seems to me to be eminently sensible so to do.

Rev. William McCrea: As the hon. Gentleman is concerned about righting wrongs, should he not perhaps be suggesting to his Government that they bring in similar legislation as a matter of urgency for the coloured population on this side of the water?

Mr. Porter: I will come to that later. I can see the thrust of that argument and I do not disagree with it, but that sort of legislation applies to the mainland already.
My third reason for being in favour of the Bill is that it is quite deliberately vague. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) sees this as a criticism, but I do not. How could one prescribe in detail what will happen in each area, each place and each job? That would be nonsense. It might provide much-needed work for my hon. Friend, or indeed for me, in another guise as a solicitor, but it is not practical.
I was much taken by the Secretary of State's comment that the emphasis in the Bill is on voluntary action by employers rather than unnecessary penalisation. That seems to be right. I want the Bill to be given a fair wind to see how it works. The commission certainly has power, but this House has the overwhelming power, has it not? If it were seen that the commission was exceeding its powers and acting in an unreasonable fashion against the employer or the employee, or if generally it was not working well, the House could amend the legislation or put something else in its place. Surely, given the reasonable grounds on which the Bill is presented, we should have the grace to agree to see how it works.
The points which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) made were, as far as I could judge, Committee points, not Second Reading points. His objections were not fundamental. I thought that he would. have the grace to say that the Government were trying to


do something that ought to be done, and then see whether he could amend it in Committee; and of course he would have the right, on Third Reading, to oppose it if it did not come up to his expectations. I expected more of him and I hope that he will think about this before the Bill goes into Committee.
I have certain reservations. I find it distasteful that people in the Province should have their religious affiliations recorded. That makes me feel uneasy, but I was slightly heartened by the fact that at least 80 per cent. of people are willing to put their religious affiliations in the census form anyway. Eight out of 10 is not a bad start.
I am also uneasy about whether legislation will make things worse rather than better. I have an inherent dislike—I am sure that the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) will understand this—about whether legislation can make people like one another or come together rather than move further apart. Of course one is bothered about that. I do not want to see a religious relations industry built up in the Province in the same way as we have a race relations industry here.

Ms. Abbott: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the issue is not a question of relations in this field or of legislation to make people like one another? The issue is whether the state has a responsibility to intervene to try to ensure equality of opportunity.

Mr. Porter: The short answer to that is yes, it has. That is why, despite my feelings of unease about whether it will succeed, I say that, in the event of extreme bigotry, the state has an obligation to see what it can do to make that bigotry disappear.
My main reservation is that the Bill will not get at the root of the problem. Other people have canvassed this matter, and we have wondered whether it is a matter of the education system. I am reminded of something that was said to me in confidence when I was in Belfast last week by one of the aircraft manufacturers in the Province. They have been recruiting from schools of all kinds and have made a deliberate, positive and benign attempt to ensure that there is fair employment in the factory. I inquired whether reverse discrimination was practised. The senior man said no rather quickly, but the personnel man said that, there was a difficulty, because they found that, at the age of 15, 16 or whatever it is, there was a difference in the attainment level and qualifications of those from one sector of the education system as opposed to another.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pursuing this argument about educational attainment and the types of education available. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that if one section of the community perceives that it is excluded from particular jobs, the education they receive will adapt in order to equip them for available jobs, so it is the economic system which distorts the school system, not the school system which distorts the economic system?

Mr. Porter: I beg leave to doubt that. It seems to me on the evidence available that certainly one sector of the education system in the Province is deliberately chosen by that sector to achieve certain ends. I am willing to pursue that at a later time, in another place perhaps.

Mr. William Ross: Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate, and should not the Opposition Front Bench also appreciate, that some Roman Catholic parents, for those very reasons, choose to send their children to state or independent education even at the primary school stage, as is happening in my local school? Those children are perceived as Protestants and are numbered among the Protestant population rather than among the Roman Catholic population.

Mr. Porter: I did not wish to put it in such blunt terms, but the hon. Gentleman makes the point for me. So far as I can judge, the verdict of employers is that the quality of entrant they get from the Unionist Protestant sector is higher than from the other sector. I state that as a fact. It is something which ought perhaps to be recorded and reflected upon by those who have responsibility for education for Roman Catholics in the Province. I am not being critical; I merely state, despite the fact that there may be only anecdotal evidence, that that is what I have found there.

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend has expressed concern about the Bill. Is he concerned about clause 7, which vests in the commission the duty of maintaining a code of practice and publicising that code of practice? It also vests in the commission the responsibility for taking such steps as it considers necessary to encourage—that is a strong word—employers to adopt the policies and practices recommended in the code. This is giving considerable power to the commission, in which Parliament has no stake.
My hon. Friend has said that Parliament can take action against organisations such as this. In my view, on no occasion have any of these quangos introduced a code of practice and Parliament has amended that code of practice. Is not my hon. Friend concerned about that?

Mr. Porter: Of course I share my hon. Friend's concern, but not to the degree of my hon. Friend. I do not think "encouragement" is a particularly strong word. We have had plenty of codes of practice for good behaviour in previous statutes. Perhaps this is something that ought to be explored in more detail in Committee.
I have said why I support the Bill, and I have expressed my reservations about it. I trust and hope that I will not be on the Committee because I might be persuaded by arguments from the Opposition Benches. We have a perfectly decent, honourable Secretary of State, who, after considerable thought, has introduced this legislation. This House would do well to at least give it a chance.

Mr. Peter Archer: The House of Commons is a funny place. I suspect that the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter), and I will be in different Lobbies this evening, yet I think he and I probably have more in common than I have with some hon. Members who are opposing the Bill. I hope he will agree on reflection that, although one cannot change hearts and minds by passing legislation, legislation can help to form opinion now and in the future. I suspect there is a great deal that we do have in common, but he will also remember that yesterday the House was discussing the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill and how best to contain and finally—hopefully—to put an end to terrorism. Conservative Members were even suggesting


that the Opposition are not as dedicated to the fight against terrorism as they are themselves. One important contribution which this House as a whole could make to stop paramilitary activities is to show an effective concern to end the conditions which provide a source of young recruits to the paramilitary organisations.
When I held the portfolio now held by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), I did not have his knowledge of conditions in Northern Ireland; still less did I have the knowledge of hon. Members who come here from constituencies in Northern Ireland. But I set out to try to get to know some of the communities over there—separately, because, unhappily, they are mainly segregated. I did it without attracting more attention than I had to and I talked to parents who were worried sick at the thought that their sons, and sometimes their daughters, would be recruited into the paramilitaries.
Then I talked to the young people themselves, and it became clear to me that there were three factors which helped to make them into potential recruits. The first was that there were genuine grievances in the places where they lived: there were housing problems, there were unattractive environments, there was poor administration of social security and there was the withdrawal of funding for community projects. Above all, there was this spectre of unemployment, which for so many of them is with them from the time they start school until the end of their lives.
Secondly, and as part of the same syndrome, there was the lack of anything constructive to do; they had idle hands, which were at the disposal of the devil. Thirdly, among people in the minority tradition there was the belief that they were the victims of discrimination, that things were not fair. We could argue about statistics and whether it should be two and a half times, twice or some other figure.
We could take the point too that was made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume)—that perhaps the most effective thing we could do is to provide jobs across the board in Northern Ireland, because clearly it is more difficult to deal with discrimination on a falling market than on a rising one.
I do not believe that any hon. Member would question the proposition that there is an imbalance, a very real imbalance, and one which, as my hon. Friend said in an intervention, cannot be explained by any one single factor in any one primary point. I have talked to people in Northern Ireland from the majority tradition. They will normally say that there was a problem; they will sometimes say it was a few years ago; frequently they will say that it is getting better—and they may be right about that—and they will explain, quite properly, that it did not always arise from conscious discrimination: there were all kinds of factors. It arose partly from the areas where factories were situated, from the perpetuation of a family tradition—if one's uncle worked there one was more likely to get a jot—and it does arise partly from cultural factors in the educational system. It arises from all these things, but it adds up to a substantail imbalance and, if one is not on the right side of the divide, it adds up to a substantial handicap.
It would be wrong, of course, not to recognise that a great deal has been achieved in recent years. Managements and unions in some plants have worked very hard and have taken very real risks to try to deal with some of these problems. They have dealt with some of the practices

which made Catholics feel unwelcome: for example, the display of emblems on anniversaries. I can understand the feeling that it is a human right to put them up, but all this had an effect, and many of them have worked very hard to try to deal with it. It was not always easy for them and, of course, it does not always pay to be seen as being in the vanguard. So they have not received the recognition which they might have done, because they have not sought it. I was speaking with some of them this morning. It is important that legislation should do what legislation can be reasonably expected to do to facilitate those efforts.
The Bill could attack those problems and at the same time demonstrate a real commitment to attacking them. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North that the Government have missed that opportunity. The Bill does something towards addressing the problems, but its defects are more in evidence than its virtues. They will increase as time goes on and as people see how the Bill works. I understand the Secretary of State's problems. Some of them are caused by those who sit on his own Back Benches. Whatever he does, he will not please everybody. There are others who attack the Bill for different reasons, but the Secretary of State has missed an opportunity.
Most important of all, because it is right at the heart of any fair employment programme, is the matter that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North about affirmative action. We can all agree about some propositions. I suspect that we all agree that it is not enough simply to provide that, in future, those who are setting on labour, or considering promotions, should not discriminate. As my hon. Friend said, affirmative action has been very much a part of everyone's thinking on this matter since the van Straubenzee report.
Those who have been discriminated against in the past are entitled to expect a programme that is designed to restore their position before everybody is given equal opportunities. The horse which has been carrying an unfair handicap is entitled not only to have the weight removed; if that weight is to be removed halfway through the race, it should be given the opportunity to make up lost ground.

Mr. William Ross: It is not the same horse. The light hon. and learned Gentleman is now speaking about completely different individuals.

Mr. Archer: I wish that were true. I wish that it were possible to draw a line between present and past and to say that the hand of the past will never be heavy on the present. Some examples have been given in this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) said in an intervention that the very fact that many Catholics have found it difficult to find work in engineering has created a cultural tradition in which they do not consider obtaining engineering qualifications. There are all sorts of ways in which the past sits heavily on the present.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: In the west of Scotland from where I come, there are descendants of Irish Eiremen and Irish Ulstermen. There are heavy engineering industries in the west of Scotland, too—in particular, the aircraft industry in which I worked. Catholics find no difficulty in adapting to those jobs in the west of Scotland, so why is


Ulster different? If the argument is about Protestant and Catholic schools, the fact is that denominational schools also exist in the west of Scotland.

Mr. Archer: My hon. Friend is right. There is nothing about somebody's theological opinions that reflects on their ability to carry out engineering work. However, the very fact that these problems have existed in the past leads to their perpetuation in the present.
If we simply provide that there shall be no future discrimination, then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North said, we may prevent those who wish to take affirmative action from taking it. That is a real danger, as the Bill is drafted. I am certain that the Government neither intended nor planned that, but they should be very careful that it does not turn out to be one of the by-products of the legislation.
The first part of the Bill imposes a duty on the commission and, through the commission, on employers to promote equality of opportunity. Clause 20 defines equality of opportunity in terms of individual applicants. One has to give equal opportunity to each individual applicant. Anyone who takes special measures to improve the competitive position of Catholics may find that he is in breach of those earlier provisions.
Affirmative action is discussed in the White Paper—I think that it is discussed rather better there than it is addressed in the Bill—and affirmative action is dealt with in the earlier part of the Bill. It is written, by clause 1, into duties under the 1976 Act, but we do not hear much more about it in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North has already read out the definition in clause 53. How does that square with the duty to provide equality of opportunity for individuals?
The White Paper contained a different definition. It referred to
special measures taken to promote a more representative distribution of employment in the workforce.
When the Minister replies to the debate, I hope that he will say why the Government have changed that definition, which would have made it clear that special measures were not intended to fall foul of the duty to afford equality of opportunity. It would have been better still if the Government had spelt out in the Bill, at least as examples, some of the steps that they were talking about.
Of course we all understand the need for common sense and a sense of justice to individuals; otherwise, we alienate the majority and cause a digging in of heels. We make it harder for those who are trying to make progress. I would not recommend a quota system. I would not suggest that employers should give preference to a Catholic who is unsuitable for a job over a Protestant who is clearly the best applicant, although, if I were pressed, I would opt for the American tie-breaker: when two applicants have equal qualifications, preference should be given to the one who has been penalised in the past.
There are all kinds of affirmative action that would not be offensive to anybody, such as extending and formalising the recruiting and advertising procedures, establishing goals and providing outreach training schemes. The Fair Employment Agency said in its reaction to the Bill— nobody pretends that the FEA has any political axe to grind—that it regrets that affirmative action was not spelt

out, as it is in the sex discrimination and the racial discrimination legislation. Then it would have been clear that that kind of action was not unlawful.
I remember the arguments that we had over the MacBride principles. They are written on my heart. The Secretary of State, if I may remind him, said at that time precisely what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North is saying now: that the MacBride principles would fall foul of the equal opportunities legislation. The Government said that the MacBride principles recommended reverse discrimination—even a quota system. Those who have taken the trouble to read them will recollect that they did no such thing; but they did recommend affirmative action.
It was said then that to adopt those principles would entail a breach of existing legislation, because they would discriminate against Protestants. The American courts gave fairly short shrift to that argument, but the question was raised by those who wished to discredit the principles. They argued their case in the context of the existing legislation about equal opportunities.
The MacBride principles became emotively charged for two reasons. First, as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) reminded us, there were those who were prepared to see them used to discourage American investment in Northern Ireland. I know that Sean MacBride never intended that they should have that effect. What most effectively discouraged American investment in Northern Ireland was the very discrimination which they were intended to remedy, but, I take the point made by the hon. Member for Foyle, that nobody wants to discredit what is already happening in Northern Ireland; we do not want to discourage overseas investment.
The second reason was that the principles were associated with Sean MacBride. I understand that those who knew him in the 1920s remember him as a participant in the violence that, unhappily, affected the whole of Ireland at that time. I knew him as a man whose life was dedicated to the cause of human rights, as the tireless chairman of Amnesty International, where I knew him best, and as a committed worker for peace. I should be out of order if I embarked on a further vindication of Sean MacBride, but I understand why the MacBride principles evoked some of the problems and why they were not considered objectively. But there were those who fastened upon those matters because they did not want progress to be made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North is anxious that those who do not want to see progress made will fasten on precisely those problems. I hope that that controversy will not be reopened by the Bill. It will be bad enough if it provides an excuse for those who want an excuse not to take affirmative action, and it will be a tragedy if it deters those who genuinely want to address the problem—and there are many such people. I ask the Secretary of State to avoid that risk and to look again at the Bill, while there is still time, to ensure that the omission of those clarifying words does not defeat the very purpose of the Bill.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Earlier in the debate, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said that he did not believe that the Bill had anything to do with the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I refer the


House to the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), who said:
Many programmes and measures have been introduced of value to all the people of Northern Ireland, including the minority, since the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed. Among the items which have benefited from discussion through the Conference are the establishment of an independent commission for police complaints, the repeal of the Flags and Emblems Act, new legislation aimed at full equality of opportunity in employment".—[Official Report, 12 January 1989; Vol. 144, c. 979.]
So the Government have put it on record that the Bill flows from the Anglo-Irish Agreement. It ill behoves the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North to deny that, although he may not believe in the truthfulness of the Government and may justify his comments because of that.
For many years a great deal of attention has been focused in Northern Ireland on the question of fair employment. We have heard it implied in the House tonight that if we had full employment in Northern Ireland, or at least if the Roman Catholics felt that they had their quota of employment, the troubles would cease.
I was late coming to the House because I was attending the funeral of one of my constituents who was murdered in Strabane the other day. Does the House really believe that if the man who lobbed the bomb into the police vehicle had been given a job he would not have taken such action? Does the House really believe that the gangs who gathered and stoned the police, the ambulance and those who hastened to bring help to the dying man would not have done so if they had had their quota of employment? If the House believes that, it fails to realise what lies behind the Republican violence in Northern Ireland. The House should face up to that.
The very people who killed the police officer and who jeered at those who went to help as the man bled to death, also bomb factories and places of employment and repulse efforts by the Government to bring employment to their areas. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) told me that the Republicans blew up an employment centre in Londonderry and then, when an election was being held, they used the tin that had been put round the wrecked site for posters saying "Vote for Sinn Fein".

Mr. Martin Flannery: Once again, the hon. Gentleman generalises and implies that the struggle for fair employment is to give fair employment to a group of gunmen and bombers. We are discussing fair employment for the people of Northern Ireland across the sectarian divide. When the hon. Gentleman, rightly, uses emotive examples, he is conveying a different impression. I shall vote against the Bill because it does not go far enough towards what I want, but the hon. Gentleman is trying to make us adopt an emotive approach like his.

Rev. Ian Paisley: If the hon. Gentleman had been in the House earlier and had heard what was said, he would agree that the impression was given that if these people had jobs they would not be shooting, killing, maiming and bombing. That is what was said and I was dealing with that point. I too shall be voting against the Bill, for wholly different reasons, as will my colleagues.
There are those who have tried to give the impression during the debate that there is a terrible situation in Northern Ireland in which Protestants are engaged in wholesale discrimination in employment against Roman

Catholics and that Roman Catholics do not stand a chance of being employed. The hon. Member for Foyle, who unfortunately is not in his place at the moment, mentioned his own area and made some remarks about it. If one quotes anything in the House from one section of the community, it is ridiculed by another section and vice versa.
I shall quote from the Fair Employment Agency's own report. The Fair Employment Agency was set up to look at employment figures in Northern Ireland. It issued a report in October 1980 on its investigations at the Department of Health and Social Security. It dealt with 21,000 personnel—and what did it find? It found that the largest part of that particular section belonged to what was known as the amalgamated general service grades. It found when it examined that section that 54 per cent, were Roman Catholics. Most people know that the overall population figures are about 60 per cent. Protestant and 40 per cent. Roman Catholic.
Although the figures that I have quoted are in an FEA report, they are often forgotten. I could give other figures. The Northern Ireland Housing Executive, for example, has 3,500 non-manual staff. The Fair Employment Agency was pushed by many hon. Members to look into the employment question there because it had been said that Roman Catholics were not being employed by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. The report said that in clerical grades the numbers from each community were very similar up to the age of 30. In that age group, there were 343 Protestants and 348 Catholics, so over half of the people under 30 years of age in clerical grades were Roman Catholics.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's speech. It is interesting that the examples he has quoted from the FEA report involve public sector employers. I notice that the figures for prosecutions under the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 show that 55 per cent, of prosecutions for unlawful discrimination have been in the public sector. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the answer is to have a far smaller public sector in Northern Ireland and that the privatisation programme would be a strong step in that direction?

Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman should wait to hear the rest of the statistics. His argument will not stand up to them, and he should try to find out what Northern Ireland is about. One does not find out from the FEA report who was discriminated against, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that a member of my church who was discriminated against by Michelin of Ballymena received the largest amount of money yet paid out in connection with deliberate discrimination. We need to find out the number of Protestants discriminated against, and I shall come to that.
There was an investigation into the Southern health and social services board. In the district of Newry and Mourne 57 per cent, of all nursing staff were Roman Catholic. The FEA found that nursing accounts for the largest proportion and greatest number of Roman Catholic staff in the board's employment. It said:
57 per cent, of all nursing staff were assessed by the agency as Roman Catholics.
Page 43 of the report said:
The representation of Roman Catholics within the job category of nursing is higher than would be expected given the


ratios of Protestants and Roman Catholics within the local areas and higher than their representation in the other job categories of the Southern Health and Social Services Board. The proportion of applicants for nursing posts who were Roman Catholic was also higher than their share of the locally resident population.
That was what the FEA found in the public sector.
Now let us consider the private sector. The hon. Member for Foyle talked about the problems that he had in his district. Pushed by the Unionist representatives of Londonderry, the FEA conducted a study of employment in Londonderry. It looked at private firms, and concluded:
Companies located on the City side employ few Protestants and even in the case of one large company on the Waterside, the level of Protestants is substantially lower than the population as a whole.
The City side, across the river, is predominantly Roman Catholic. There used to be a number of Protestants there, but they have been driven across the river, and the Waterside is now predominantly Protestant.
The study investigated six private firms. Lee Apparel (United Kingdom) Ltd., Londonderry, employed no Protestants at all. The FEA searched but failed to find one Protestant employed by Essex International, Londonderry. The three remaining firms were in the Waterside, which is largely Protestant. One was found to have a work force with 37·6 per cent. Protestant employees. The second had 33 per cent, and the third had fewer than 20 per cent. Those are not my figures. They are the figures of the Fair Employment Agency. I might add that no Unionist has any faith in the Fair Employment Agency, but these are its figures, nevertheless.
I find it very strange that Mr. Cooper, the head of that agency, has to be pushed hard before he will look into complaints from Unionist representatives. It takes him a long time to move on our complaints, although he is happy to move on other matters. The FEA's finding was that in Londonderry, where, according to various Republican civil rights groups, Roman Catholics could not secure employment, they had in fact so many of the jobs that in the Roman Catholic areas of the city no Protestants were found in the survey and even in the Protestant areas of the city Roman Catholics had the overwhelming majority of jobs.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Do not those figures show that what we need in areas where Protestants are discriminated against in employment is effective fair employment legislation—with which we could have been presented today, but which is not properly contained in the Bill?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I believe that the answer—some people disagree—is that we need jobs in Northern Ireland. The more jobs there are, the less of a problem there will be. What is more, we should involve ourselves in a drive to get those jobs, as when we have a super-abundance of jobs people will not argue.
I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) that certain sections of the community follow particular occupations. For instance, tiling and slating have always been predominantly controlled by Roman Catholics in the city of Belfast, who have always worked at that trade. No one argues about that. In the shipyards, a system used to operate whereby four people did the riveting—father, brother, uncle and

son. In the early 1920s there were serious problems in the shipyards which left a dark shadow. These are matters of history, but the way to solve the problem is to get more jobs into Northern Ireland.
I represent the whole of Northern Ireland elsewhere and I represent many Roman Catholics in my own area. I have to had to fight battles for them in this regard. A Roman Catholic nurse in my constituency was discriminated against, and I had terrible trouble in persuading a Northern Ireland Minister to do anything for me when I pleaded with him about the case. I should make it perfectly clear that I am not talking about the present Secretary of State or his team. It happened to be a Labour Minister, who is a noble Lord, with whom I had trouble. I believe that people should be appointed on their merit.
I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West that it is difficult to know what to do if two people have the same qualifications. The employer must consider them with regard to the respective percentages that there may be in his work force. In areas where employment quotas have risen, however, we find that instead of tailing off, they are inclined to continue to rise, until Protestants feel that they will be pushed out. That is a great problem. People receive letters through the post asking, "Do you come from a predominantly Protestant area?" I saw such a letter the other day. One of the big firms in Northern Ireland is now asking, "Do you come from a predominantly Roman Catholic area?"
Let us consider the banks. The Allied Irish bank has connections in the South of Ireland. The FEA investigated all five banks—the Allied Irish bank, the Bank of Ireland, the Northern bank, the Ulster bank and the TSB. It found that there was a wide disparity in the figures—only 16 per cent. Roman Catholic at the Northern bank but 72 per cent. Roman Catholic at the Allied Irish bank. Apparently the two banks with many branches in the Irish Republic have a majority of Roman Catholics while the three banks with their main branches in Northern Ireland have a majority of Protestants. The FEA stated:
All figures provided to the Agency show that in every bank the opportunities for Roman Catholics have been improving in the last 15 years.
That is a summary of what the FEA said about this matter.
I feel that the severe position of firms in Northern Ireland in regard to the idea that employers have to monitor the religion of all their people is serious business for employers. I receive many representations from employers. We were told by the Minister that the CBI agreed with the Bill, but after he had spoken members of the CBI spoke on radio saying that they agreed with nothing of the sort and were very concerned about compulsory monitoring and so are the employers and employees. Mention has been made today of the safety of all the details about the religion of employees in Northern Ireland. People in Northern Ireland are afraid for their safety and they do not like other people to know the details of their lives. All those problems arise in regard to the legislation. If we had more employment and better employment prospects in Northern Ireland, we would not be debating this business.
I accompanied the hon. Member for Foyle on a trip to the United States of America in an attempt to persuade people to invest in Northern Ireland. It did not matter where they invested whether it be Strabane or Londonderry, the east or the west, we were both pushing for investment in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman


was very fair to us when it came to creating employment in Belfast. I bear witness to that, and I expect that he would respond by saying that I pushed just as hard as he did in regard to other places. I will continue to do so because an employed people is a happy and contented people and we need more employment in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has produced selective statistics which nevertheless demonstrate the great necessity for the Bill. In spite of those quotations, it is quite clear that he will vote against the Bill.
We are considering a Bill which, in its content and its extent, must appear unusual in this last part of the 20th century. I am sure that not only in north America, but in Europe, parliaments will be wondering why, after 68 years of the administration of Northern Ireland, only tonight have we produced substantive legislation to correct an ingrained injustice in the community. For many years, successive Governments hid behind the excuse that it was the problem of the then Stormont regime, but that cannot apply to the past 16 years. One of the most disappointing features of the past 16 years of direct rule was the failure meaningfully to tackle fair employment. In that period there has been no real change by persuasion or by gentle coaxing of the main employers in Northern Ireland, and gross injustices continue to be perpetrated on the religious minority in Northern Ireland.
Tonight, I was able to quote an independent assessment as late as 1987 showing that the rate of Catholic male unemployment was 2–5 times as high as Protestant, yet that statistic was queried, as were all the statistics given tonight. However, an independent body, the Policy Studies Institute, gave us that very evidence.
I listened carefully to all the hon. Members who have spoken tonight. It seems that there is a reluctance to admit that there is a problem of job discrimination in Northern Ireland, or to confront that problem. It seems that we are pussyfooting around, to use a North of Ireland expression. The statistics quoted for and against the Bill make it clear that an imbalance is caused by religious discrimination. It must naturally follow that we should do something about it. I and my party hope that the legislation that we are considering will be that something.
It is generally assumed that bigotry in Northern Ireland is the sole cause of job discrimination and that the narrow-minded small employers in Northern Ireland are doing all the damage. But that is not the case. The annual report of the Fair Employment Agency shows, surprisingly, that the blue chip companies with headquarters here in London have made a major contribution to the imbalance of employment opportunities in Northern Ireland. I am referring to the banks, the building societies and the insurance institutions which are making a great contribution to the imbalance of employment in Northern Ireland, in addition to the ingrained and endemic bigotry that exists in Northern Ireland.
The problem must be seen in perspective. As has been said, the engineering industry and the electricity supply industry in Northern Ireland have caused and are causing a great imbalance in employment. Tonight, some attempts were made to excuse or justify that on the basis of a predilection towards educational courses which prevent

the minority from participating and seeking employment in those sectors. The reality is that, when parents bring up a child knowing that certain sectors of employment are cut off from their family, they have very little option but to advise that boy or girl to go in a direction where there is a possible opening at the end of their secondary or tertiary education.
Over the years, and particularly since 1976, we have clear evidence that persuasion and gentle encouragement have come to naught. That was the method in the 1976 Act and has had little or no effect. We must now have positive, strong legislation with the severest penalties for those who flagrantly transgress the most basic human right—the right to work. As we have heard tonight, we are debating an issue which goes deep into the communities of Northern Ireland and reveals many of the prejudices and biases that exist there. The Bill may be our last chance to create a meaningful piece of legislation to redress the problem. Hopefully, as with the voting franchise and the housing discrimination measures, perhaps the Bill, properly amended, will consign this problem to history, but it will do so only with substantial amendments.
There is an anomaly in tonight's debate on outlawing discrimination in employment, because legislation already exists which should have accomplished that. The Government of Ireland Act 1920 referred to and dealt with that problem. The Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 and the much-mentioned Fair Employment Act 1976 made discrimination on grounds of political or religious belief illegal. However, despite that legislation, nothing has changed materially over the years. The continuous household survey of July 1985, which confirmed the 1971 and 1981 census figures, instigated SACHR to commission a major study by the independent body to which I have referred, the Policy Studies Institute. Its impeccable statistical technology gives incontrovertible evidence of the continued existence of discrimination in employment in Northern Ireland.
There have been many attempts tonight to explain away the difference between Catholic and Protestant employment. I use those words as a kind of shorthand; I am well aware of the various differences. We have heard about different labour markets and class differences. We have heard about differences in education, attitudes to work, age distribution and family size. Then there is, in the "in phrase", the so-called "chill factor"—the unwillingness of one community to travel to work in an area where another community predominates. We have heard of the dominance of the Protestant community in security-related occupations, and there is the underlying black economy.
We have heard all those arguments and excuses many times before. The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights said that all those factors had been taken into consideration. Its final conclusion was:
While all the listed factors"—
the ones that I have mentioned—
are related to unemployment, a man's religion is consistently shown to be a major determinant in his chance of being employed.
I do not need statistics to enable me to understand what is happening and has happened in Northern Ireland. I live there and I have experienced the consequences of the contents of the reports that have been put before us. But anyone with an interest in fair employment who has studied annually the output of the Fair Employment


Agency cannot come to any conclusion but that there is an endemic problem that must be addressed with some determination. I should like to think that the Bill, in its final form—I emphasise that—will be the vehicle by which that problem can be addressed.

Ms. Abbott: Fairness in employment is a difficult issue. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that all the legislation in the world is of no avail without a genuine political will? Is the hon. Gentleman confident that this legislation is not mere window dressing to appease American opinion? What makes him confident that there is a real political will to deal with the inequality of opportunity?

Mr. McGrady: I shall deal with that in some detail. We must legislate to enable equality to be achieved. The Bill does not go far enough. There are many positive factors in the Bill that we welcome. For example, we welcome the annual monitoring of the religious composition of a work force which will enable an overview of the employment position to be obtained. That in itself will provide a ready tool for investigation if necessary.
We also welcome the expansion of the Fair Employment Agency—the commission, as it will be known—with its enhanced resources of money and manpower. We also welcome the substantial fines that can be imposed on employers and the withholding of grants and contracts from those found to have contravened the Act. We welcome the prohibition of indirect discrimination. That was a major gap in the 1976 legislation. We welcome the obligation on employers to carry out a three-yearly review of their employment practices.
However, that is as far as the Bill goes. We must examine whether the Bill in its present form will have the impact that the Secretary of State hopes. If the Bill cannot be amended in Committee, it will be difficult to accept it as a meaningful and earnest endeavour. I listened attentively to the Secretary of State on affirmative action. He listed a series of possibilities, the major one being the code of conduct. I find it strange that we are discussing the Second Reading of a Bill whose heart appears to be missing. We are debating a Bill which contains a considerable vacuum.
Affirmative action is the central issue, yet it has been consigned to a vague and imprecise definition at the end of the Bill. That will not merit great support or understanding among the people whom we represent. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) referred to the protection required for employers engaged in outreach and training programmes based on religious connotation. Our amendment, which was not selected, refers to specific religious training. That would be appropriate for any work force, but it should have read "religious-specific training".
There are glaring weaknesses over grants and contracts. Withdrawal will be used against employers, but the whole matter is discretionary. There is nothing mandatory about it. In practice, all kinds of pressure will be brought to bear on those charged with implementing the Act. The measures should be mandatory, not permissive. Even more surprising, in view of the 1976 legislation, the individual complainant is at a disadvantage. The Fair Employment Commission will be unable to take individual complaints unless there is a matter of policy. At present, the Fair

Employment Agency will investigate an individual complaint and, as it were, run with it to its successful or unsuccessful conclusion.
In addition, the individual is being put into an adversarial environment before a tribunal. Let us be practical: an individual complaining about discrimination, either because he has not been given a job or is not getting promotion, or whatever, will be reluctant to take that courageous step against his employer. Under this legislation, he will face a variety of barristers and experts, which is not the case at the moment. Even if he wins, the maximum compensation will be £8,500. If he is not entitled to legal aid, he will have to judge whether it is worth his while to proceed, despite any injustice he may have suffered.
The targets and goals that were so much a feature of the White Paper appear nowhere in the Bill. I attempted to intervene when the Secretary of State talked about monitoring applications. The figure used will apply only to work forces of 250 and over. A sizeable proportion of the work force in Northern Ireland is employed by companies with fewer than 250 employees. Therefore, an enormous number of employers—I do not have statistics to show whether they comprise the majority of employers—will be able to excuse themselves from monitoring applications of their work force every three years. There are also imprecise definitions of "indirect discrimination" and the way in which that concept will be perceived when the Bill has completed its passage through Parliament.
We are concerned about the charges of discrimination that will be excepted from investigation, in view of the Secretary of State's intervention under section 42. While I do not want to bandy words with him on this issue now, my personal experience causes me concern lest section 42 has been misapplied. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North gave an example. The Secretary of State is aware of a sub judice case involving a large employer which is obviously a serious matter.
Whatever mechanism is found, there must be some appeal procedure. At the end of the day it must be possible for an individual or company to say, "I have been found guilty without trial of being a national security risk. What is this all about? May I make a submission on my own behalf?"
We are greatly concerned about the whole area of orders and regulations. They are too numerous for me to deal with in detail now. A plethora of instruments will be left to the Department of Economic Development, including the code of practice. It is wrong that all the matters which those instruments cover should be left to a period following debate in this House. They should be before us at least in draft form.
Hon. Members have spoken of the neutrality, as we call it, of the workplace. That issue was raised substantively in the White Paper, but it seems to have disappeared. Neutrality of the workplace is an essential factor in creating conditions by which equality of opportunity can be implemented. For example, in the marching season in Northern Ireland the workplace is where neutrality must exist, for it is the place where the two communities can be harnessed—where they can work together and not oppose each other. Just like the home, the workplace is a vital area for community relations.
I have given a long list of grave deficiencies in the Bill. I could go on with my shopping list, but I will not do so now. We have before us an opportunity—one might say


almost a last opportunity—to do something finally about discrimination in Northern Ireland. It will not be a meaningful measure unless it is considerably amended. Indeed, if it is not amended, it will be a sign—perhaps unintentionally—of a lack of interest on the part of the Government to listen to constructive criticism and heed well-argued reasons change. It will also question the good faith of the Government in wanting to solve the problem once and for all. I hope that in Committee the Government will respond to these criticisms and make the major changes in the Bill.
There is an essential requirement on the Government outside the Bill, and many hon. Members have referred to it. The whole issue of training for industry needs urgent consideration by the Government. They must also consider the location of training schools, for their present locations leave much to be desired. While we want inward investment into Northern Ireland, hopefully from abroad, we should remember that a great factor in discrimination terms in recent years has been the location of industry.
I must tell the Minister that at this time public bodies under his jurisdiction are guilty of discriminating in the location of industry. That happens on a daily basis, when officers of the Industrial Development Board and the Local Enterprise Development Unit misdirect firms away from areas, presumably for political reasons—and for "political reasons" one can read "religious reasons". If the Minister wants evidence of that, I will be pleased to give it to him privately. It is important that the location of new industries or the expansion of existing ones takes place on a fair basis; otherwise, the problem of discrimination will not be resolved.
My party hopes that, when replying, the Minister will comment on the points I have made. In particular, will he assure us that, in Committee, the Bill will be amended to take account of many of the shortcomings to which I have referred? If that does not happen, the Bill will be useless for the purpose for which it is intended and will be rejected by the disadvantaged people in the North as a meaningless exercise.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. Less than an hour remains before the Front Bench speakers will be hoping to catch my eye to wind up. Many hon. Members still wish to speak, so I hope that those who are called, out of consideration for others, will be brief.

Mr. Ian Gow: When the Secretary of State moved the Second Reading, he said that he was in favour of equality of opportunity in employment. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said precisely the same. My hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder) made the same point, and it was also made by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth).
That shows that we have in all parts of the House a commitment to the principle of equality of opportunity in employment in Northern Ireland. There, one may think, the unanimity ceases, because despite that unanimous commitment to a single purpose, it is clear that the Opposition parties will vote against the Second Reading tonight.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: No.

Mr. Gow: We have not yet heard from the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). We shall see what happens.
I remember how, 13 or more years ago, the House voted for a Bill, introduced by the then Labour Government, which is now the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North and I voted in favour of the Second Reading and Third Reading of that Bill. We meet this evening to debate the Second Reading of this measure because of a perceived failure of the 1976 Act, which was passed through the House with the support of the Conservative party for the then Labour Government.
We may mark the words of the White Paper which preceded the Bill, because in order to establish the extent to which the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1976 was successful, the Government set up their review in 1985. This is what we read in the White Paper:
the Government's statistical review revealed that the differential employment experience of the two communities was enduring, despite these extensive statutory provisions and the solid work of the Agency".
The agency, of course, under the Bill, is to be replaced, possibly in deference to the European Community, by a commission. The question which we are entitled to ask ourselves is whether my right hon. Friend believes that the 1976 Act has made matters better or worse. Has the equality of opportunity which all parts of the House desire been assisted or hindered by the 1976 Act? If the answer is that things are really no better in 1989 than they were in 1976, one may wonder why the House is being asked to replace, in effect, the 1976 Act, with further legislation if the existing legislation has not had the desired effect.
I had considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South when he said that, in a sense, the whole of life is about discrimination. It would be possible to argue that, in selecting the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North as the shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the leader of the Labour party was discriminating against all other candidates for the job. I am making an assertion that, in a sense, the whole of life is about discrimination.
The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott), who has been diligent in her attendance as usual, might assert that there is unlawful, improper or unwise discrimination by the electorate, or the "selectorate" in this country because of the small number of women who are Members of this place. It is certainly an act of discrimination because, if the kind of parity which is envisaged in this Bill had been applied to women, and for all I know the number of Roman Catholics in this place, then it would be possible to argue that discrimination is proceeding all the time.

Ms. Abbott: I simply make the point that there seems to be a semantic problem here. The hon. Gentleman, with an uncharacteristic lack of precision in the use of language, is confusing the notion of individual personal judgment with the notion of discrimination, which to my mind, and certainly in recent political discourse, involves large groups of people as a whole being substantially and provably economically disadvantaged.
The hon. Gentleman cannot equate my personal choice to wear a pink jumper as opposed to a blue one in the House this evening with substantial economic disadvantage among tens of thousands and sometimes millions of people. If the hon. Gentleman is advancing a serious


argument, which I believe he is, he will do us the service of not confusing personal judgment and taste with massive economic discrimination and the political consequences which follow.

Mr. Gow: I shall not follow the hon. Lady, although I am glad that I gave way to her. The point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South that, where there is inequality of opportunity—I repeat that I wish to see equality of opportunity—the belief that such inequality can best be removed by an Act of Parliament is not proven. There are large areas of employment in Northern Ireland where there is inequality of opportunity, but it is not caused by the lack of legislative provision.
I will give just two illustrations. It is possibly a matter of regret to other hon. Members in the Chamber that there is a massive inequality of religious belief among those who are currently employed as soldiers in the Ulster Defence Regiment and those who are employed as policemen in the Royal Ulster Constabulary. But I assert that it is not the absence of legislation that has led to that differential. Indeed, I believe that there is a danger that the Bill will make matters worse.
Here we are proposing to set up a Fair Employment Commission and a fair employment tribunal. We are involving the Department of Economic Development and talking about the involvement of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. We are proposing to spend another—900,000 a year and we shall take on a total of 34 additional employees. I do not know whether those employees are going to work in Massey avenue. I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who will reply to the debate, to determine how many of those additional 34 employees will be taken on by the commission or the tribunal in Northern Ireland and how we shall determine the correct proportion of Roman Catholics and Protestants, or Jews or atheists among those employees.
Can we legislate for this matter? How can we define in any meaningful sense a travel-to-work area? When we have had the annual monitoring returns from the public and private sector, how will we say that an employer in a particular area should have fewer Protestants and more Roman Catholics? It is self-evident from my right hon. Friend's speech that, even if the Bill achieves its most benign effect, we shall not see an overall diminution in the number of people who are unemployed. We may be able to spin it out rather differently so that in some parts of Northern Ireland there will be more Protestants in work and more Roman Catholics out of work. The most benign result may be that in some other parts of the kingdom more Roman Catholics are in work.
What we really should be addressing our minds to is how we can get more jobs in Northern Ireland. Of course, we are debating the Bill because the survey showed that, pro rata, more Roman Catholics than Protestants were without a job. So that is the issue to which we should be addressing our minds.
You will have gathered, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my serious reservations about the ability of legislation to improve perceived discrimination. I repeat my opening words I am in favour of equality of opportunity in Northern Ireland. [Hon. Members: "How will you do it?"] I voted in favour of what was then the 1975 Bill. I will vote in favour of this Bill tonight, because, despite my serious

reservations, I approve of the purpose and the policy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the purpose and policy set out in the Bill. If one has reservations about legislation which is before the House, one is at least able to show that in the Division Lobby. Tonight I shall give the Government the benefit of the doubt.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I have listened carefully to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), as one always does, but the most interesting part of his speech was at the end when, having expressed all those warm sentiments about removing discrimination in Northern Ireland, he was asked what he would do about it and the answer was nothing.
Any piece of legislation that deals with the difficult issue of discrimination always comes up against the practical aspects of how these things will be judged, and against the problems over which lawyers will always wrestle as to how one legislates for one person to like or love another, and how to express fairness. Of course, we all know that we cannot do that perfectly. No piece of legislation that deals with discrimination has ever done it perfectly. But the fact that the legislation is there provides a bulwark and a backdrop for people to have the legitimate correction of a complaint.
The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 is imperfect in its actions, but its existence helps to act as a bulwark againt sex discrimination. No doubt the same is true of the racial discrimination legislation. Certainly the experience in the United States of America is that where there is legislation in all sorts of areas, even relating to discriminatory discounts for small firms, such as the Robinson Patman measure, it is a help. It may be ineffective as a counsel of perfection in its ultimate jurisdiction and in the way it is carried through, but its very existence helps to solve the problem.
Surely that is the way in which we should be dealing with this matter. It has been said that all the Opposition parties intend to vote against the legislation tonight, but we shall not do that. We shall vote for the Bill, with caveats, many of them listed in the Labour party amendment, about provisions which are inadequate. We must remember that this is a Second Reading debate, dealing with principle. That principle requires a piece of legislation which tackles discrimination to be considered by the House. We all know that on many occasions when we try to make amendments in Committee the Government refuse them. Committees are being reduced to a farce because the Government do not listen to the arguments, but on this occasion we must give the Government the benefit of the doubt.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), who has made such a significant contribution to Northern Ireland debates, gave the White Paper a qualified recommendation. He listed a number of key questions which have remained unanswered. His excellent speech bears re-reading now. Nevertheless, the legislation is an attempt to address a serious problem in Northern Ireland so we shall give it a qualified welcome. We are prepared to give it a Second Reading.
There is little change in what we see before us and what was recommended in the White Paper. A number of questions spring to mind, some of them articulated in the


Labour party amendment for which we shall vote. It will fail, of course. If it does, we shall vote for the Bill and argue the case later for the amendments.
Other amendments are worth mentioning. I make no apology for the fact that they were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Mossley Hill when he considered the White Paper. I am sorry that they have not been taken into account. It is important that the question of penalties should be addressed. A £2,000 penalty is adequate for non-registration, but it is not adequate if we are dealing with deliberate misinformation in the case of very large contracts. For instance, in a contract valued at £500,000, a fine of £2,000 for deliberate misinformation would be nothing. I hope that the Government will consider a sliding scale of penalties for misinformation according to the size of the contract.
The second key point relates to legal aid. We are glad that the Government have agreed that the commission can take up cases on behalf of individuals. That is helpful, although undoubtedly it will be budget-limited. If the commission has at its disposal only a finite sum to fight such cases, it will rightly pick cases to establish useful precedents which the courts can use afterwards. This may not help an individual who cannot afford to pursue a case, as so frequently happens. The lack of adequate legal aid provision is a significant deficiency of the Bill.
Positive discrimination has not been dealt with. What would happen if an individual sought to take up a case against a firm which wanted to introduce positive discrimination to correct the religious imbalance in an area? What would happen if a person wanted the firm to operate positive discrimination to provide a fairer reflection of the religious make-up of the area? Would that be subject to the legislation played in reverse, as it were?

Mr. McNamara: Yes.

Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman says yes, and so it would appear to be. That is a significant disadvantage.
The next question is addressed in the Labour amendment. It must be of great concern to people in Northern Ireland and here that the legislation clashes with existing legislation on sex discrimination and racial discrimination. I am sad not to see a tie-up on the employment rights of women, particularly those of ethnic minorities.
In a comprehensive speech, the hon. Member for—

Mr. McGrady: South Down.

Mr. Ashdown: I used to live there so I should remember the constituency. I recall that I lived next door to Captain Orr, one of the hon. Gentleman's predecessors, but that is a matter best not spoken about at the moment.
The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) mentioned the chill factor. This is an important matter brought out by the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights and it is one to which the Government should address themselves. Perhaps it cannot be legislated for, but I hope that the Government have thought about it and will consider how to deal with it.
Once again we are dealing with legislation which is not a solution in itself but merely an instrument which can be used to try to achieve a general solition in Northern Ireland. It does not tackle some key areas such as how to create jobs. We have to read the legislation against the miserable background of a Government who have

imposed their ideology on Harland and Wolff in a crazy and ludricrous way. Their policy has today delivered to a primary pillar of the Belfast economy the bitter pill of 450 job losses. This is a direct result of the Government's idiotic policy of not allowing Harland and Wolff to bid for Ministry of Defence contracts until it is in the private sector. Here we see the Government taking steps to improve the labour market on the one hand while casually destroying it on the other. It makes no sense.
With all those caveats and concerns, I believe that the Bill will provide at least an instrument which may help. It deserves to be debated and to go into Committee. It deserves to be improved along the lines which have been suggested in the House, and I hope that that will happen. In that spirit, we support the Second Reading.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) said that there is a problem, so we should do something about it. That something was legislation.

Mr. Hume: Part of the something.

Mr. Budgen: Yes, but it was claimed that legislation inexorably followed from the problem. I smiled as I reflected on how his predecessor would often have said that to suggest that a problem was capable of being cured by legislation was certainly something to which one would expect the Liberal and the Socialist traditions in the House to adhere but certainly not something that Tories on the whole believed in.
When you stand in a non-political way at an election, Mr. Deputy Speaker, knowing that you will be seated in that Chair for most of the ensuing Parliament, and someone says to you, "Sir Paul, we expect that there will be less legislation if there is a Tory Government," I expect you smile. It is undoubtedly the case that, as Governments settle in, they forget the scepticism that they ought to have about legislation.
I am sure that the hon. Member for South Down will recognise that among the persons who have affected the opinions and prejudices of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) have been his predecessor and also a great friend of his predecessor, Mr. T. E. or Peter Utley. He once wrote a pamphlet entitled "What Laws May Cure", expressing a high Tory scepticism about the value of legislation and suggesting a number of tests that might be applied before the House proceeded to legislate. He asked whether there was a consensus for the legislation, whether the law would be enforceable, whether it could be specific and whether it could avoid being discretionary and arbitrary.
When applying those tests to the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) has said, we have the advantage of the 1976 Act. I make no party political point, but it was introduced by a Labour Government—by a party which, on the whole, believes in the efficiency of legislation and holds that men's minds can be cured and altered by Acts of Parliament. When I asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in what I hoped was a helpful intervention, to explain whether the Bill was building on the 1976 Act, I was amazed when he seemed to reply that it was not. I would not be so impertinent as


to say that my right hon. Friend had not read the brief, but if he had looked at the White Paper he would have seen on the first page:
The basic objective is to strengthen and broaden the existing legislation".
If my right hon. Friend had had the White Paper handy, he would also have been able to answer my question about the way in which the 1976 Act was working. Paragraph 2.4 gives a detailed exposition of the various proceedings that have been dealt with before the agency.
I have no doubt that after my impertinence in asking him how the agency worked—I noticed a message coming over from the civil servants—my right hon. Friend would have been told about the question asked by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) on 25 May about the agency's activities, which is in the helpful reference sheet put out by the Library.
It is clear that when my hon. Friend came to advocate the Bill he had nothing in his mind about the necessity of bolstering the 1976 Labour Act, although that is the thrust of the White Paper. He saw the Bill as a political necessity arising from two things—the Anglo-Irish Agreement and a desire to placate American influence. He did not bother to convince the House in any way about the 1976 legislation. He did not say, "We do not know that it is very good, but it did a partial job. For instance, we have noticed a certain amount of improvement in the discrimination problem in the Province." He simply ploughed through his remarks on the basis that more legislation was necessary.
The more that we apply the Utley tests, the more sceptical we become. When I read the Bill I thought to myself, as I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sir H. Miller) did, "My goodness, what would happen if this sort of legislation were proposed for the west midlands? When we went back to the west midlands at the weekend our constituents would be jumping up in anger." It seems that political opinion in the Province is slightly different. I do not say that there is a consensus in favour of the 1976 Act, but there seems to be a form of reluctant acquiescence.
This legislation is severely defective, and plainly not a great improvement on the 1976 Act, and greatly to be condemned because it gives the commission law-making powers that no one should have. The commission will decide what is discrimination and, in a selective way, who should be proceeded against. It is the most arbitrary and political way of enforcing the law, and we are left with no proper proof that the problems of Northern Ireland will be improved by legislation.
It is sad when a Conservative Government, with the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), say, "There is a problem; therefore it can be cured by legislation."

Mr. Hume: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a problem?

Mr. Budgen: Of course I do.

Mr Hume: What would the hon. Gentleman do about it?

Mr. Budgen: I do not think that it will be cured by legislation. I suggest that it would best be cured by market forces. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms. Abbott) seems very

angry. If an employer is unwise enough to employ less good people because he or she does not like the colour of someone else's skin or their religious beliefs, that employer will provide a less good service, and when he competes he, will find that he loses.
Let us suppose that I am running a small business and need a lady to do a job that the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington could do. If she applied for the jot)—I know that she would say that such an idea is wholly unrealistic—and I refused her because of the colour of her skin, I would then have to employ a less good person who would offer a less good service. The market exercises a discipline, but in this context the law does not change people's minds or behaviour.
There is no evidence that the 1976 Act has done any substantive good—there is only the strong suspicion that poor old Northern Ireland is once again being used as a political pawn, partly to placate the Republic and partly to placate the Americans.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: Like any other hon. Member, I feel loyalty to the party that I serve in the House, and I am on a three-line Whip to vote against the Bill. Nevertheless, I feel that it would have been better if we had had a free vote tonight. I never thought I would see the day when I would oppose any Government who were trying to bring in legislation to do away with discrimination in Northern Ireland. But I feel that I have some knowledge of the circumstances, living as I do in Glasgow, where the sons and daughters of Ulstermen and people from Eire came to settle because of the great famine and lack of opportunity. My ancestors come from Rathmullin. In my grandparents' day there was terrible discrimination in Glasgow; adverts in newspapers said that Catholics need not apply. Such discrimination still exists, but it is nowhere near as bad as that in Northern Ireland.
No one should kid himself that education is a problem and that because Catholics are educated in a particular way they enter certain services and industries. That is nonsense. Certainly, the Catholic schools in which I was brought up did not specialise in technical subjects. It was considered a great achievement for a Catholic school to turn out a teacher, a doctor and a dentist, but boys like me took up apprenticeships in the engineering industry. It did not make a bit of difference who we were; if we completed the training, we were able to do the job.
No foreman in the Rolls-Royce factory where I worked, which turned out the RB211s, was able to say, "That person must be a Protestant because he is a good engineer doing a good job." That is nonsense, and it does not apply in Northern Ireland.
The Government should consider the fact that discrimination takes place not only in Northern Ireland but on the mainland. It is sad that we are even discussing the legislation. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said that no legislation could do away with discrimination. Legislation does help. His argument was used when John F. Kennedy wanted to help Martin Luther King and his people in the deep south. Those who were against helping black people in America said that legislation would not help them. It has been proved that legislation, although not the full answer, certainly helps.
It is a sad feature of our society that bowling and golf clubs bar black people, Catholics and Jews. On many occasions in the Chamber I have spoken about the British Rail Engineering Ltd. workshops in my constituency. The religious make-up of its management is such that Catholics would not be able to obtain promotion. Yet it would be difficult for an employee to complain about that.
It is galling to have a nationalised industry and Civil Service departments where discrimination takes place, and yet taxpayers' money is used to provide those jobs. A sad feature of Northern Ireland is that a great deal of taxpayers' money goes to provide these jobs. Why should that money be used to help a religious clique?
If we introduce this legislation in Northern Ireland, we should at least examine the problems on the mainland. Every year without fail articles are written about the masonic lodges in our police forces. I have nothing against anyone joining a masonic lodge if that is what he wants to do. However, lodges that are exclusively for police officers create a problem, because they cause a lack of confidence in sections of the community.
Wherever religious discrimination exists in the United Kingdom, steps should be taken to eliminate it. The outside world must be asking what is going on in communities up and down the country where people still think in the same terms as their grandfathers and great-grandfathers.

Mr. Tony Baldry: It is now more than 150 years since the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts in this House, which was the legislation which prevented anyone other than Anglicans from attending university and from participating in certain professions. Some of us who come from dissenting religions, however, still have folk memories of the sense of injustice that that legislation caused and of the fact that Quakers, Jews and other non-conformists were obliged to leave the professions to go into trade. No one should ever under-estimate the deep sense of injustice that can be felt if people believe that they are being discriminated against solely on the grounds of religion. That sense of injustice can be very deep and can go forward for many generations.
The discrimination does not have to be deliberate, positive, malicious or cruel. It is possible, especially in employment, for people to discriminate unconsciously. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) referred to people getting jobs on the basis of their father, their brother or their uncle. Of course, if people get jobs solely on that basis, almost certainly they will be awarded jobs, too, in the Northern Ireland context, because of their family connections and their religion.
We must make it clear that we are committed to fair employment because it is right and because we find it repugnant that anyone should be put at a disadvantage because of their religion. We must make it clear that we are determined to tackle the problem of religious discrimination in employment. Everyone should welcome the proposed legislation, which would require all employers not only to avoid discrimination, but actively to practise equality of opportunity and, where necessary, to take affirmative action. Some hon. Members have skated over this a little too glibly and have pretended that there is no problem in Northern Ireland, but despite almost 10 years

of anti-discrimination legislation and enforcement, unemployment among the Catholic community in Northern Ireland has remained disproportionately high.

Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Baldry: No, I will not give way.
A Catholic male is two and a half times more likely to be unemployed than a Protestant.

Mr. Budgen: rose—

Mr. Baldry: No, I will not give way. I have only a limited time and my hon. Friend has already had his opportunity.

Rev. William McCrea: Will the hon. Gentleman give way.

Mr. Baldry: No, I will not give way.

Rev. William McCrea: When was the hon. Gentleman last in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Baldry: Appointments to jobs should always be on the basis of merit. For that merit principle to operate properly, it is essential that there should be no unnecessary obstacles in the way of any applicant being considered on merit. Employers in Northern Ireland must be encouraged to open up their recruitment practices and processes to the widest possible range of applicants. Under-represented groups must be given a fair and full opportunity to compete for employment. To do that is not only just and equitable, but it will thwart those critics and enemies of Northern Ireland who use the statistics of comparative unemployment—for example, unemployment among male Roman Catholics as compared to that among Protestants—as evidence that employers should not invest in Northern Ireland and that it should be ignored.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, there is now an economic opportunity for Northern Ireland and for other parts of Europe in the period coming up to the European single market in 1992. I was in Korea two weeks ago. Companies in Korea and the far east want to invest in Europe before the single market is created, as do other companies throughout the world. Now is the time for Northern Ireland to take advantage of those opportunities, but the enemies of Northern Ireland will tell companies not to go there—to go to Wales or anywhere else—because there is discrimination in Northern Ireland.
The issue of employment discrimination in Northern Ireland has been exploited in the United States by proponents of the so-called MacBride principles. We know that since 1986 a coalition of local politicians and Irish American groups, through a series of shareholder resolutions and state legislation, have sought to force American companies operating in Northern Ireland to adopt those principles. Although the principles are vague, imprecise and impractical, that campaign threatens to harm substantially the long-term prospects of Northern Ireland's economy.
American firms currently employ some 10,000 people in Northern Ireland—around 10 per cent. of the manufacturing work force. With this Bill on the statute book, those in the United States who are concerned about fair employment will have all the ressurance that they need that Northern Ireland is a place where equality of opportunity is actively implemented and the MacBride


principles will be as redundant then as they are irrelevant now because it will be demonstrably clear that we are fully committed to fair employment.
We should not forget that if Northern Ireland is to prosper, investment and job creation are essential complements to the more effective practice of equality of opportunity. If Northern Ireland is to flourish and if the unacceptable employment differentials between Protestants and Catholics are to be reduced as quickly as possible, there is no doubt that more jobs are needed. All of us in the House must promote the considerable attractions that Northern Ireland presents as a location for new investment. That investment and those jobs will come more easily if there is no shadow of a suspicion of religious discrimination in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland undoubtedly has a lot to offer and we should trumpet that fact abroad.
It is sad that in debates such as this we hear very little of what Northern Ireland has to offer the world. Northern Ireland has plentiful skills and a traditional work ethic. In many ways, it is an educational showcase not only with two major universities but with many good schools. Northern Ireland has a high level of computer literacy, good labour relations, a well-trained work force, favourable tax allowances, highly competitive labour costs and a proven track record with international companies such as du Pont, Ford, GEC, and so on. In the past year du Pont alone has invested £180 million in new facilities. That is all very good news which we should be trumpeting abroad and, in so doing, helping to attract new jobs and new investment to the Province.
In the short time available to me, I do not intend to go into the details of the Bill because that has been done exhaustively throughout the debate and I am sure will be done in Committee as the Bill goes through the House, but we must make it clear that at the centre of the proposals is a determination to maintain the principle of appointment on merit. The Bill is clearly against quotas and reverse discrimination, because in the climate of Northern Ireland their effect could be catastrophic on acceptance by the wider community of the fairness of the equal opportunity proposals. In the context of Northern Ireland, religious monitoring must be the key to fair employment practice, for only such monitoring can supply the basic information necessary to determine whether fair employment is practised. The emphasis of the Bill is rightly on voluntary effort by employers rather than on unnecessary penalisation.
I hope that the Bill will demonstrate beyond peradventure to the whole world not only that Northern Ireland has a great deal to offer but that all forms of discrimination in Northern Ireland will be eliminated if the House has any say in the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) asks what laws may cure. The fact is that we in this House have the ability, through legislation, to demonstrate to the world that we are doing everything that we can to eliminate discrimination. If those who argue against legislation feel that there is a better way, let them come forward and demonstrate what it is. Until that time we must use the best means available to us. I hope, therefore, that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.
There is, however, one note of sadness which the House cannot pass over in silence this evening. For many years until now there has been a considered consensus of hon. Members in all parts of the House in seeking the best way to move forward in Northern Ireland. That has implied a number of things. First, it has assumed that the Government of the day, of whichever party, have been using their best endeavours, as people of good will, to find the best way forward in Northern Ireland. Secondly, it has assumed that the Opposition of the day seek to find such common ground as they can with the Government of the day to move forward in what, on any account, is perhaps one of the most difficult situations that this House faces today.
Sadly, that consensus has now apparently been broken, and the Labour party has clearly decided that it is far easier to criticise whatever the Government are doing. Of course, whatever one does in Northern Ireland, one can either argue that it is not enough or that it is too much, but what the Labour party is doing is showing that, for the most part, it is a party of political pigmies—and the same goes for the SDLP—who have not the courage to stand by the Government on certain issues and say, "We do not agree entirely with this legislation but at least it is a step in the right direction, so we shall give the Secretary of State the benefit of the doubt for wanting to achieve something and move forward on a positive basis and we shall support him." Instead, the Opposition Front Bench spokesman merely seeks to carp and to find any division whatever. I can only assume that his speech today was written by a lawyer because if I had been given a brief to carp and nit-pick at whatever points were made in this Bill I should have been hard put to do a better job.
Not one positive statement has been made from the Labour Front Bench in this debate. I hope that Labour Members will reflect that what the hon. Gentleman said may well find favour with those groups that he enumerated at the beginning of his speech as being the starting point in Irish politics, but I doubt very much whether they will command much respect in Northern Ireland or in the rest of Britain.

Mr. William Ross: The course of this debate has not been unexpected to anyone who has sat through the numerous debates we have had on Northern Ireland down the years, and I have no intention of following the course which others have followed in this debate. I prefer to deal with a single specific aspect of this legislation, and that is the methodology of the investigations and the setting out of the reports which have been followed in the past by the Fair Employment Agency and which will undoubtedly have to be followed in the future. If we are ever to get anywhere we must have absolutely accurate statistics, and I do not believe, despite all that has been said, that those statistics as yet exist in Northern Ireland.
The reports in future must have a single, uniform system applied to them. In my preparation for this debate I—am sorry that I have such a short time left to speak—I took the opportunity to compare a number of the reports, and I discovered that some reports treated the folk employed as being drawn from all of Northern Ireland. The Civil Service is a case in point, a most prominent one, but there are others, such as Northern Ireland Railways,


the Ulster museum—which surprised me somewhat—and the Northern Ireland Electricity Service, which did not really surprise me.
Then, on the report of employment patterns in the Belfast area, with particular reference to engineering, I discovered that the Fair Employment Agency used the travel-to-work area. Council areas were used for the reports on AVX, Hyster, Lucas, and the North Eastern education and library board. For the report on the Northern Ireland airports, the home towns of the various employees were listed and those home towns extended from Coleraine to Newcastle. Then, as a second string to their bow, they listed the council areas of Belfast, Ballymena, Carrickfergus, Lisburn, Antrim and Newtownabbey. For the Western health and social services board, the report gave numbers and percentages of employees and also drew attention to the fact that the catchment area included Donegal, in a foreign country. In one class of employee, 7 per cent. of the employees are from Donegal.

Mr. Hume: Tell that to the Conservatives.

Mr. Ross: That remark could also be addressed to Mr. Cooper, who is a native of Donegal.
No boundaries were drawn concerning the reports on the newsletter in the Irish News. However, we discovered that the statistics in the Belfast Telegraph seemed to be based on the number of persons who were available for each printing trade. I should have liked to deal with that matter, but unfortunately time does not permit me to do so.
If we are to produce something that makes sense and that fits together in a comprehensive manner, it is vital that each investigation should be carried out in exactly the same way, that reports should be prepared under exactly the same headings and that people should know exactly what statistics and what areas are being discussed.
In many urban areas employees will walk to work. People who live in rural areas will have either to drive or use public transport to get to work. We need to know exactly what area we are looking at and the criteria, but we do not have that information.
It is essential to find out what criteria are to be applied and those criteria should be used strictly all the time. If no information is supplied under a given heading in one report, although that information is given under the same heading in another report, the reason for the lack of that information in the first report should be stated. Only when that information is provided and only when the same procedure is followed in all reports will they make sense. I ask the Minister to take that point on board. We on this Bench agree with the first one and three quarter lines of the Opposition amendment but very little else.

Mr. Jim Marshall: We have had a wide-ranging debate and the difference of opinion among hon. Members is not perhaps unexpected. My first task is to explain why the Opposition will, though extremely reluctantly, be voting against the Bill.
I take as my starting point the Secretary of State's speech. I am sure that he was speaking on behalf of the Government when he said that, as a moral principle, no matter where anybody lives in Northern Ireland, he or she should have equal opportunities when applying for a job.

There is no difference between the Secretary of State and me on that point. There is also no difference between his party and mine on that point.
The Secretary of State also said that it was not just a question of stopping discrimination; we need to encourage equality of opportunity. It is at that point that the Secretary of State and I, and his party and mine, begin to differ. I accept that the Secretary of State takes a different view of the implications of the Bill, but our understanding of it, and the expert opinion that we have received about it, coincides with the view of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) rather than with the view of the Secretary of State—that the Bill will not carry out the intentions that the Secretary of State and the Government would like it to carry out.
The Bill is seriously flawed, particularly over the taking of affirmative action. If the Bill were to be enacted as it stands now, it would make the situation far worse in the Province and it would not lead to the increased inward investment in Northern Ireland that all of us wish to be achieved.
The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), say that that is not true. The only people whom I have heard say that that is not true are the Secretary of State and his Under-Secretary of State. Every expert opinion that I have read bears out our view about affirmative action rather than the Government's view. I suggest that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary should re-read the Bill and understand it properly.
It is for those reasons and because we believe that the Bill is seriously flawed that it is in everyone's best interests, at this stage, to defeat the Bill so that the Government can come back to the House with another Bill on which there is some unanimity. We could then begin to carry out the objective that we all want to attain—fair employment in the North of Ireland.

Mr. Tom King: The hon. Gentleman is an experienced enough Member of Parliament to know that what he has said is rubbish. If the Bill is defeated, it will not come back in this Session and it will be the end of an attempt to introduce measures that we believe will genuinely help fair employment. The hon. Gentleman understands the parliamentary process and I trust that he accepts the short title of the Bill, which refers to:
the promotion of equality of opportunity in employments".
Anything beyond that can be amended in Committee. The House should give the Bill a Second Reading and then we can argue the points fairly in Committee. The hon. Gentleman is profoundly wrong, and I would be appalled if he denied us the opportunity to prove that we are right.

Mr. Marshall: The Secretary of State knows that I do not doubt his sincerity, and I do not doubt the Government's desire to do something about fair employment in the North of Ireland. Our assessment is that the Bill will fail to do that.
I want to deal with the two specific points that the Secretary of State raised. First, he said that the Bill could be amended in Committee. Our experience with this Government is that it is exceedingly difficult to persuade them to accept amendments in Committee. Secondly, the Secretary of State said that there was no further parliamentary time for another Bill on the subject this


Session. We believe that the present legislation, especially in terms of affirmative action programmes, is substantially better than the provisions in the Bill.
The House will be disappointed by the lack of enthusiasm shown by the majority of hon. Members from Northern Ireland. I exempt the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), but the majority of hon. Members from the Province who spoke tried to call into question the validity of the statistics. Every rational and sane person accepts the validity of the statistics. If one is not prepared to do so, one has only to go and see the reality of the situation in Northern Ireland.
It is difficult to accept or understand that position, but it illustrates the wide gulf between perceptions and reality in the North of Ireland. It is necessary that there should be some unanimity in the House over the need for fair employment in the North of Ireland. I must repeat the offer that I made to the Secretary of State a few minutes ago. If he is prepared to withdraw the Bill and to have consultations with the Opposition, I am sure that we can offer the Bill an easy and ready passage not only through the House but in Committee.
If we are ever to achieve lasting peace in the North of Ireland, all our citizens there must have equal political access and equal economic opportunity. Whatever the reasons for the present inequality—whether direct discrimination, indirect discrimination or the excuse we have heard this evening about accidents of geography—one cannot doubt the fact that Catholic male unemployment in Northern Ireland is a staggering two and a half times that of Protestant males. Clearly, there has not been equality of opportunity in the jobs market.
Any new legislation must be judged against two criteria—first, its impact on the existing jobs market, and, secondly, its impact on inward investment, particularly American investment. Judged on the first criterion, the Bill will be a signal failure. Whatever the conclusions we may reach, hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that the acid test for fair employment legislation must be the extent to which it enables employers to implement programmes of affirmative action, and to which it enables the new Fair Employment Commission to require affirmative action programmes. Despite the view of the Secretary of State, we are advised that the Bill as drafted endangers existing programmes and retards the possibility of more extensive affirmative action in future. If our assessment is correct, the Bill is fatally flawed.
On the second test—the need to attract foreign investment—the Bill may well prove to be a short-term propaganda success. I note that one of the Under-Secretaries—and, presumably, officials from the Northern Ireland Office—is parading round the UnitedStates of America, no doubt selling the Bill as a propaganda victory to the anti-MacBride campaigns in the United States. The Bill may well succeed in that short-term objective, but without a doubt its lack of teeth and substance will quickly become apparent.
We all accept that new investment in the form of new jobs is necessary if any significant attack is to be made on the imbalance in Catholic and Protestant employment. In that context, American investment is particularly important. However, it will not be long before the Bill is revealed as a toothless wonder. No matter what short-term

propaganda success the Government may achieve, when that happens American companies will again come under pressure when they seek to invest in the North of Ireland or to place orders there.
The proposals do not match up to what we believe is necessary. Worryingly, in our view—

Mr. Budgen: It may help the hon. Gentleman if I tell him openly across the Floor of the House who, according to the Conservative research department brief, will be caught by the Bill. I quote from the final sentence of the section entitled "Attacks Answered":
Only deliberate defiance or obstruction of the Commission and Tribunal is penalised under the Bill.
In other words, unless an employer says, "Push off" to the commission, he will be all right.

Mr. Marshall: I hesitate to say that I am grateful to have the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West as an ally on this point. He has reinforced my assertion that the Bill is a toothless wonder. I hesitate, too, to applaud him for voting with us this evening as, presumably, he does not have the courage to do so.
We are worried that some of the provisions in the Bill—on contract compliance, for example—are weaker than the proposals in the White Paper. One cannot over-emphasise the fact that, if it is passed, the Bill will provide the framework for fair employment legislation in the Province until the end of the century at least. If it is not capable of seriously addressing the imbalance and the question of Protestant and Catholic employment, it is not worth having.
In our view, the Government have failed in their responsibilities in three key areas. First, they have failed to give a clear indication of the way that all Government policies—political, social and economic—are to be subject to the litmus test of whether they promote equality of opportunity. Secondly, they fail to set targets and timetables for reducing the current ratio of unemployment between Catholics and Protestants, thus ruling out the only effective and objective way of measuring the success of the legislation. Thirdly, the Bill is extraordinarily silent about the measures to enforce the legislation in the public sector. We should emphasise the importance of the public sector in Northern Ireland. Although 200,000 people, or 40 per cent. of the work force, are employed in the public sector, the Bill fails to spell out how the legislation will be effective in the public sector.
The Bill pays lip service to the need to promote equality of opportunity, but it does not permit effective and affirmative action to bring that about. I shall mention two examples. As we understand it, and as we are advised, the legislation would make unlawful schemes to train existing employees in a company who might benefit from training for another job in the company or for promotion. We are also advised that outreach measures designed to encourage applications from school leavers to companies with serious imbalances in their work forces would also be illegal. The Minister shakes his head. I am prepared to be convinced by argument, but not by the Minister shaking his head.
If the Government are serious, the provisions of the legislation are far weaker than those available under race relations legislation or the sex discrimination legislation which provide and encourage means of affirmative action. In addition, the Bill should spell out that the Fair


Employment Commission should be specifically charged with the duty to develop and implement a strategic policy for ensuring the achievement of equal opportunity.
We welcome the proposal that all public sector bodies and all large employers should monitor applications as well as their existing work force. However, like the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, we urge that the Bill should contain a timetable for reducing the 250 employee threshold, for a number of reasons. As the Government know, private sector employers with more than 250 employees are fairly rare in many rural parts of the Province, especially west of the Bann. In certain urban areas, such as parts of Belfast, the limit is too high and very few companies would fall within the net. There should be a time scale for reducing the threshold.
The Bill is totally inadequate to deal with the scale of the problem in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, the great expectations built up by the publication of SACHR's report on fair employment have been dashed by the Bill. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions has expressed great disappintment. We share that disappointment. I urge the House to reject the Bill.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers): This is a major piece of legislation—a substantial Bill of 55 clauses which will affect the pattern of employment in Northern Ireland for years to come.
Let me first deal with the points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) and for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) who challenged the Bill's fundamental purpose. Speaking, as I do, as one who believes in the dynamo of the private enterprise system that is central to economic success and who believes strongly in the importance of freeing private enterprise from the shackles and burdens of government, and indeed that the private enterprise system allows and encourages the flowering of individual efforts and so makes its contribution to democracy itself, I accept that we should think carefully before introducing further regulation on business. Government should approach the subject with diffidence and move only when it is clear that action is required.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West made that point with fluency and wit. He is one of the few Members of Parliament who can amuse and entertain even as his barbs find their mark. I enjoyed my hon. Friend's speech, but I have to say to him that, in the context of Northern Ireland, it was fundamentally misconceived.
The facts on unemployment are not in dispute. The Government's own statistics suggest that the unemployment rate for Catholic males runs to about 2·5 times the rate for Protestants. Moreover, there are significant differences in the type and pay levels of the jobs, with a clear tendency for Catholics to be over-represented in the lower grades and under-represented in the higher grades.
There could be many reasons for those disparities and the report by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights and other studies have tried to identify the explanations which could be put forward. For instance, it has been argued that Catholics are concentrated in areas of

higher unemployment in the west of the Province and that that contributes to the continuing differential in employment.
It has been said that social differences between Protestants and Catholics are a major element in unemployment differentials, and it is certainly true that. in using the words "Catholic" and "Protestant", one is not dealing simply with the manner of worshipping God but with a complex socio-political-economic condition. It has been argued that differences in educational attainment, and in subject choice and availability, have contributed to the disparity in employment levels.
In its important report, SACHR also studies the suggestions that have been made that Catholics tend to have a lower commitment to work than Protestants—an idea which SACHR considered and rejected—and that differences in unemployment levels derive partly from differences in age distribution of the Catholic and Protestant sections of the community and the tendency of Catholics to have larger families. All those intensely personal issues have been studied, and properly so, because they provide the framework—the background—to Government consideration and the legislation which has flowed from that.
In the context of Northern Ireland, it has been argued that Catholics and Protestants can be reluctant to travel to work outside the immediate area where they live, or may be reluctant to work in places or areas which they regard as hostile. As the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) said, this is known in Northern Ireland as "the chill factor" and there is no doubt that it has some influence. Similarly, it has been argued that Catholics are less willing to accept certain types of employment, the most obvious example being work in the security forces, where work may be available but for various reasons they may feel unable to apply.
Those are sensitive subjects, but it was right that SACHR should commission its detailed study, which in broad terms comes to the conclusion that some of those items do contribute to the employment disparity. However, it is also clear that, even when all those factors are taken into account, there is still an unexplained difference. There remains a much higher correlation than one would have expected between religion and unemployment.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Is there any reason why SACHR did not put a percentage on the people who would have jobs in the security forces if they went for them?

Mr. Viggers: Yes, I believe there is. As the hon. Gentleman will know from his study of the report, it gave statistics against some of the heads that I have enumerated, but not against the security forces. It points out the number of people who do work in the security area, and I have freely admitted that that may be an element in the consideration, but the fact is that, after all those points have been carefully considered, there remains an unacceptable disparity.
At the end of the day we are left with one clear conclusion which no one can deny the Fair Employment Act 1976, conceived as it was with good intentions, has not been successful in eradicating employment disparity between Catholic and Protestant in Northern Ireland. In


statistical terms, overall the improvement in Catholic employment that was indeed to flow from the 1976 Act has not been achieved.
That does not mean that progress has not been made. There have been important areas of substantial progress. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South-West that there have been over 60 sectoral studies and investigations, and over 400 individual cases, have been examined. Many valuable improvements in employers' practices have been introduced, both at the instigation of the FEA and in the light of the Government's guide to good practice.
To take one example, and an important one, the Northern Ireland Civil Service has introduced a comprehensive monitoring programme. This example is now being more widely followed in the public service generally. The experience of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, and indeed that of the major private sector employers who have introduced monitoring and have taken affirmative action, shows that any imbalance in applications and recruitment can be reduced if tackled appropriately.
So some progress has been made but the statistics remain obstinate and clear and they are reflected in public attitudes. There is a wide perception among Catholics that they do not stand the same chance of a job. The statistics confirm this to be the case, and it would be absolutely wrong for Government to stand aside from this situation. Government have a heavy moral obligation to improve the climate of fair employment in Northern Ireland and I submit that any fair-minded person entrusted with our responsibility in this field would take the same view.
If the House agrees, as I trust it will, that legislation is required in Northern Ireland to improve equality of opportunity in employment, is this Bill the legislation which is best calculated to achieve that necessary effect? Certainly, in approaching this legislation, the Government have taken care to consult widely, and my right hon. Friend referred in his introductory remarks to the consultations over two years. Throughout the whole of this process we have been consulting very widely with employers and employee representatives and with community interests. We also had the opportunity of discussing our proposals with Government representatives from the Republic of Ireland. We have followed with interest the views expressed by the Government of the Republic of Ireland, who took a sustained interest. We have taken account of their views and, of course, we have taken account of the views of all those whom we have consulted.
We are satisfied that the thrust of our proposals now laid before the House has a broad consensus of support and that they will be successful in achieving the intention of promoting equality of opportunity in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Martin Flannery: rose—

Mr. Viggers: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way, especially as he has not been present very much during the debate and as I am short of time. But perhaps I should, briefly.

Mr. Flannery: Apart from there being many things wrong with the Bill, it seems to have no teeth. What

enforcement machinery is there to implement its provisions? It will peter out like all the others, because it contains no enforcement procedures.

Mr. Viggers: I shall come to that. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong, and I hope to reassure him on that in due course.
As I was saying, we have a level of consensus from the consultations that we have carried out. With this level of open consultation and support, one would have hoped to achieve a measure of unanimity for the proposals in the House, at least in principal. I recall that, when the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill was introduced to the House in 1976 by the Labour Government, the Conservative spokesman, the late Airey Neave, described that Bill as "essential and important." Winding up the debate on Third reading, the late John Biggs-Davison said:
The official Opposition have supported, and do support, the principle of the Bill".—[Official Report, 11 June 1976; Vol. 912, col 2002–3.]
The Conservative party at that time had reservations about points of detail on the Bill but did not seek to divide the House on Second Reading or on Third Reading. So the Conservative party supported Labour's proposal in broad terms.
How very different the situation is tonight. The Labour spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) made a grudging and petulant speech, with all the emphasis on what he perceived to be wrong about the Bill and lacking the grace to admit that much in the Bill is common ground between us. He was thrown into high relief by the hon. Member for South Down, who said that he would not oppose the Bill and that it needed amendment in Committee.
The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) gave the Bill a fair wind. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) said that he found himself in a surprising position, as he would have to oppose the Bill. The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), winding up for the Opposition, sought to rectify some of the damage by hedging some of his remarks and using expressions such as "as we understand it" and "as we are advised" on several occasions.
The hon. Gentleman, as we understand it, was wrong in saying that outreach training is not possible and that affirmative action has been weakened. He was badly advised if he was told that. Moreover, if the Opposition think that outreach training and the lack of affirmative action are flaws in the Bill, although I can assure them that there are no such flaws, they should support the Second Reading. Then, within the context of the long title of the Bill, they should seek to amend the Bill in Committee.
They do not have the grace to do that. They are taking an opportunity simply to show that they oppose the Bill root and branch, and to demonstrate that they have the vitality and virility to oppose the Government. They are making a serious mistake, which I am sure they will regret.

Ms. Abbott: Will the Minister accept that our opposition to the Bill is based on a point of principle? The Bill is Hamlet without the prince. An elaborate structure and 55 clauses have been drawn up to enforce a code which is the heart of the Bill, yet the test of the code is not before us. Our opposition to the Bill is based on the fact that it is sheer window dressing to appease American opinion. It will leave behind it bitterness and a feeling in the Province of having been cheated.

Mr. Viggers: I can reassure the hon. Lady completely on that point. It is normal practice, when regulations such as a code of practice are required in connection with an Act of Parliament, that they should be introduced between Second Reading and the Committee stage. The Second Reading of the Bill approves the Bill in principle, and the Committee considers it in detail, and needs to see the code of practice. We already have the guide to effective practice which gives an indication of the lines the code will take. If we had produced the code at this point before Second Reading we would have been criticised for assuming that the Bill had been given a Second Reading. We are doing exactly the right thing, consistent with normal practice.
The Opposition, whatever they say, cannot deny that the Bill proposes the most radical and incisive legislation on fair employment in Northern Ireland presented to this House by any Government. It improves significantly on the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act produced by the previous Labour Government and introduces a new range of obligations, powers, and penalties to ensure that the new law has sharp teeth. We have no doubt that the Commission will not hesitate to use them.
Dealing with a point about monitoring raised by the hon. Member for North Down (Mr. Kilfedder), there will be new regulations for compulsory monitoring by employers, although of course there will be no obligation on workers to register. We stress the obligation placed upon employers. Employers will have that duty and be required to produce the results of their monitoring to the Fair Employment Commission.
There will be new criminal penalties, backed by economic sanctions, covering Government grants and public sector contracts. For the first time, indirect discrimination is defined and outlawed. In all these ways, the Bill delivers fully on the major commitments of the White Paper which was published last May; indeed, it goes further and does not renege in any way on its commitments.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) complained that the Bill did not explain as clearly as the White Paper how different measures would apply—for instance, affirmative action. If 1, as a humble solicitor, may say so to him, a learned barrister, this is the fault of legal language. We are turning the intentions of the White Paper into statutory language. There is no weakening of the proposals in the White Paper.

Mr. Archer: The point I was making was not that the Bill was not a textbook but that it did not make the position clear in statutory language. The point which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North was making was precisely the point which the Secretary of State made when we were discussing the MacBride principles—that equal opportunities and affirmative action can sometimes cut across each other.

Mr. Viggers: I take the point. I shall not pursue it further, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me, because of the lack of time.
I want to explain the ways in which the Bill expands and strengthens the White Paper. There will be stronger enforcement procedures. Specifically, the fair employment tribunal may impose monetary penalties up to £30,000 for breach of a tribunal order, this being a unique power for a tribunal in the United Kingdom. There will be a new obligation on employers of more than 250 people to

monitor not only their work force but also the applications for jobs. I have noted the point made in the debate that the figure of 250 should be reconsidered. That is a point clearly best considered in Committee.
All registered employers will be required to review their key employment practices at intervals of three years or less to see if affirmative action is required to improve their employment practice. There will be a new power whereby the Fair Employment Commission can investigate the patterns of employment at any particular organisation and receive voluntary but binding undertakings to improve on employment practice.
Accordingly, by any objective or informed standards, there can be no doubt—none whatever—of the radical and comprehensive nature of the Bill. Nor can there be any doubt about the Government's determination to see that the new commission is properly resourced to exercise its new powers. We are substantially increasing the budget and the numbers of the Fair Employment Commission.
The leglisation is indeed tough, but it is also fair. I say that with confidence, because it is a central feature of the legislation that appointments shall be on merit and that the best person should be appointed to the job. On that point I reassure the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley): merit is a clear principle in the Bill and it reflects the prohibition of direct discrimination which has been in force since 1976.
However, I must emphasise that merit in this respect takes account not only of ability but also of aptitude, and this latter point allows for recognition of potential My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Porter) asked about this in connection with an employer in Northern Ireland whom he had visited recently. It is a central point of the Bill that there will be outreach training and affirmative action which will take account of aptitude. Employers will not simply consider the best person suitable for the job at the time. Aptitude and training potential will be relevant.
Many points were raised during the debate. Because we were anxious that as many hon. Members as possible should have a chance to speak, it will not be possible to deal in detail with all of them. I have sought to do so as far as possible, but the other points can be dealt with in Committee.
The Bill should be supported. It is a matter of grave concern to us that the Labour party does not feel it possible to support it at this point. I think the Labour party will accept that there is a great deal of discrimination which is unintentional. Recruitment by word of mouth can lead to a concentration of workers from one part of the community. Advertising jobs in one area or through one newspaper can similarly lead to an unbalanced recruitment practice. Personnel managers may not give full thought to their recruitment practices. The prevalence of flags and emblems in the workplace can discourage one or other part of the community. In that sense there are many ways in which discrimination in employment can be unintentional. We will source the Fair Employment Commission and give it more power and authority so that it can aid employers to improve their practices which may be unintentional.
Northern Ireland needs to make progress on three fronts: political, security and economic. In the field for which I have specific responsibility, economic development, great strides have been made in the last two years, with substantial investment by local companies and


inward investment from overseas. The economy has some good features, and increased employment can assist in every aspect of life in Northern Ireland.
The Bill will play a major part in promoting fair employment and the perception of a fair and just society. It is an important and genuinely progressive measure, and I commend it to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 194, Noes 268.

Division No. 67]
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Foulkes, George


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Fraser, John


Allen, Graham
Fyfe, Maria


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Galbraith, Sam


Armstrong, Hilary
Galloway, George


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
George, Bruce


Ashton, Joe
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Barron, Kevin
Gould, Bryan


Beckett, Margaret
Graham, Thomas


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bermingham, Gerald
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bidwell, Sydney
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Blair, Tony
Grocott, Bruce


Blunkett, David
Harman, Ms Harriet


Boateng, Paul
Haynes, Frank


Bradley, Keith
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Heffer, Eric S.


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Hinchliffe, David


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Holland, Stuart


Buchan, Norman
Home Robertson, John


Buckley, George J.
Hood, Jimmy


Caborn, Richard
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Callaghan, Jim
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hoyle, Doug


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Canavan, Dennis
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hume, John


Clay, Bob
Illsley, Eric


Clelland, David
Ingram, Adam


Cohen, Harry
Janner, Greville


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Kirkwood, Archy


Corbyn, Jeremy
Lamond, James


Cousins, Jim
Leadbitter, Ted


Crowther, Stan
Leighton, Ron


Cryer, Bob
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Cummings, John
Lewis, Terry


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Livsey, Richard


Dalyell, Tarn
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Darling, Alistair
Loyden, Eddie


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McAllion, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
McAvoy, Thomas


Dewar, Donald
McCartney, Ian


Dixon, Don
Macdonald, Calum A.


Dobson, Frank
McGrady, Eddie


Doran, Frank
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Duffy, A. E. P.
McKelvey, William


Dun woody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
McLeish, Henry


Eadie, Alexander
McNamara, Kevin


Eastham, Ken
McTaggart, Bob


Fatchett, Derek
Madden, Max


Faulds, Andrew
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Fearn, Ronald
Marek, Dr John


Flannery, Martin
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Flynn, Paul
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Foster, Derek
Martlew, Eric





Maxton, John
Sheerman, Barry


Meacher, Michael
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Meale, Alan
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Michael, Alun
Short, Clare


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Skinner, Dennis


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Morgan, Rhodri
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Morley, Elliott
Snape, Peter


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Soley, Clive


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Spearing, Nigel


Mowlam, Marjorie
Steel, Rt Hon David


Mullin, Chris
Steinberg, Gerry


Murphy, Paul
Strang, Gavin


Nellist, Dave
Straw, Jack


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Turner, Dennis


Patchett, Terry
Vaz, Keith


Pendry, Tom
Wall, Pat


Pike, Peter L.
Wai ley, Joan


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Prescott, John
Wareing, Robert N.


Primarolo, Dawn
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Radice, Giles
Wigley, Dafydd


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Reid, Dr John
Wilson, Brian


Richardson, Jo
Winnick, David


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Robertson, George
Worthington, Tony


Robinson, Geoffrey
Wray, Jimmy


Rooker, Jeff
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)



Rowlands, Ted
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ruddock, Joan
Mr. Martyn Jones and


Sedgemore, Brian
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.




NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Butterfill, John


Alexander, Richard
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Allason, Rupert
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Alton, David
Conway, Derek


Amess, David
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Amos, Alan
Cran, James


Arbuthnot, James
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Ashby, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Aspinwall, Jack
Durant, Tony


Atkins, Robert
Evennett, David


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Baldry, Tony
Fallon, Michael


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Favell, Tony


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Batiste, Spencer
Fishburn, John Dudley


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Fookes, Dame Janet


Bellingham, Henry
Forman, Nigel


Bendall, Vivian
Forth, Eric


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Benyon, W.
Franks, Cecil


Bevan, David Gilroy
French, Douglas


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fry, Peter


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gardiner, George


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Body, Sir Richard
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Glyn, Dr Alan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Goodlad, Alastair


Boswell, Tim
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bottomley, Peter
Gow, Ian


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brazier, Julian
Gregory, Conal


Bright, Graham
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Ground, Patrick


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Grylls, Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Burt, Alistair
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)






Hampson, Dr Keith
Mudd, David


Hanley, Jeremy
Neale, Gerrard


Hannam, John
Nelson, Anthony


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Neubert, Michael


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Harris, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hayes, Jerry
Norris, Steve


Hayward, Robert
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Heddle, John
Paice, James


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L
Patnick, Irvine


Hind, Kenneth
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Holt, Richard
Pawsey, James


Hordern, Sir Peter
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howard, Michael
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Portillo, Michael


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Price, Sir David


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Raffan, Keith


Hunter, Andrew
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Irvine, Michael
Redwood, John


Irving, Charles
Renton, Tim


Jack, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Jackson, Robert
Riddick, Graham


Janman, Tim
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Roe, Mrs Marion


Key, Robert
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Kilfedder, James
Rost, Peter


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rowe, Andrew


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Kirkhope, Timothy
Ryder, Richard


Knapman, Roger
Sackville, Hon Tom


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Scott, Nicholas


Knowles, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knox, David
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lang, Ian
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Latham, Michael
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shersby, Michael


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lightbown, David
Speller, Tony


Lilley, Peter
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Squire, Robin


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Stanbrook, Ivor


McCrea, Rev William
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


McCrindle, Robert
Steen, Anthony


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Stern, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stevens, Lewis


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Major, Rt Hon John
Sumberg, David


Malins, Humfrey
Summerson, Hugo


Mans, Keith.
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maples, John
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marland, Paul
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Miller, Sir Hal
Thurnham, Peter


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Tracey, Richard


Morrison, Sir Charles
Tredinnick, David


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Trippier, David


Moss, Malcolm
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Vaughan, Sir Gerard





Viggers, Peter
Whitney, Ray


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Widdecombe, Ann


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Wiggin, Jerry


Waldegrave, Hon William
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Walden, George
Winterton, Nicholas


Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Wood, Timothy


Waller, Gary
Woodcock, Mike


Walters, Sir Dennis
Yeo, Tim


Ward, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)



Warren, Kenneth
Tellers for the Noes:


Watts, John
Mr. David Maclean and


Wells, Bowen
Mr. Sydney Chapman.


Wheeler, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing
Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading):—

The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 192.

Division No. 68]
[10.14 pm


AYES


Aitken, Jonathan
Durant, Tony


Alexander, Richard
Evennett, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Allason, Rupert
Fallon, Michael


Alton, David
Favell, Tony


Amess, David
Fearn, Ronald


Amos, Alan
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Arbuthnot, James
Fishburn, John Dudley


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fookes, Dame Janet


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Forman, Nigel


Ashby, David
Forth, Eric


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Fox, Sir Marcus


Aspinwall, Jack
Franks, Cecil


Atkins, Robert
French, Douglas


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Fry, Peter


Baldry, Tony
Gardiner, George


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Batiste, Spencer
Glyn, Dr Alan


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Goodlad, Alastair


Bellingham, Henry
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bendall, Vivian
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gow, Ian


Benyon, W.
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bevan, David Gilroy
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Gregory, Conal


Body, Sir Richard
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Ground, Patrick


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Grylls, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bottomley, Peter
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hanley, Jeremy


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hannam, John


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Brazier, Julian
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Bright, Graham
Harris, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Haselhurst, Alan


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hayes, Jerry


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hayward, Robert


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Burt, Alistair
Heddle, John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Chapman, Sydney
Hind, Kenneth


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Conway, Derek
Holt, Richard


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Cran, James
Howard, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)






Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Portillo, Michael


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunter, Andrew
Price, Sir David


Irvine, Michael
Raffan, Keith


Irving, Charles
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jack, Michael
Redwood, John


Jackson, Robert
Renton, Tim


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rhodes James, Robert


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Riddick, Graham


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Key, Robert
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Roe, Mrs Marion


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rost, Peter


Kirkwood, Archy
Rowe, Andrew


Knapman, Roger
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Ryder, Richard


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Knowles, Michael
Scott, Nicholas


Knox, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lang, Ian
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Latham, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shersby, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lightbown, David
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Lilley, Peter
Speller, Tony


Livsey, Richard
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Squire, Robin


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Stanbrook, Ivor


McCrindle, Robert
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Steel, Rt Hon David


Maclean, David
Steen, Anthony


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stern, Michael


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Stevens, Lewis


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Major, Rt Hon John
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Malins, Humfrey
Sumberg, David


Mans, Keith
Summerson, Hugo


Maples, John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Marland, Paul
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Miller, Sir Hal
Thurnham, Peter


Mills, lain
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Tracey, Richard


Moore, Rt Hon John
Tredinnick, David


Morrison, Sir Charles
Trippier, David


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Moss, Malcolm
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Viggers, Peter


Mudd, David
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Neale, Gerrard
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Nelson, Anthony
Waldegrave, Hon William


Neubert, Michael
Walden, George


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Nicholls, Patrick
Waller, Gary


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Walters, Sir Dennis


Norris, Steve
Ward, John


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Warren, Kenneth


Paice, James
Watts, John


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Wells, Bowen


Patnick, Irvine
Wheeler, John


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Whitney, Ray


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Widdecombe, Ann


Pawsey, James
Wiggin, Jerry


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Winterton, Nicholas


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wood, Timothy





Woodcock,Mike
Tellers for the Ayes:


Yeo, Tim
Mr.John D. Taylor and


Young, Sir George (Acton)
Mr.Tom Sackville.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Harman, Ms Harriet


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Haynes, Frank


Allen, Graham
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Heffer, Eric S.


Armstrong, Hilary
Hinchliffe, David


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Ashton, Joe
Holland, Stuart


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Home Robertson, John


Barron, Kevin
Hood, Jimmy


Beckett, Margaret
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Beggs, Roy
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Hoyle, Doug


Bermingham, Gerald
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Blair, Tony
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Blunkett, David
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Boateng, Paul
Illsley, Eric


Bradley, Keith
Ingram, Adam


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Janner, Greville


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Lamond, James


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Leadbitter, Ted


Buchan, Norman
Leighton, Ron


Buckley, George J.
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Caborn, Richard
Lewis, Terry


Callaghan, Jim
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Loyden, Eddie


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
McAllion, John


Canavan, Dennis
McAvoy, Thomas


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McCartney, Ian


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
McCrea, Rev William


Clay, Bob
Macdonald, Calum A.


Clelland, David
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Cohen, Harry
McKelvey, William


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
McLeish, Henry


Corbyn, Jeremy
McNamara, Kevin


Cousins, Jim
McTaggart, Bob


Crowther, Stan
Madden, Max


Cryer, Bob
Maginnis, Ken


Cummings, John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Marek, Dr John


Dalyell, Tarn
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Darling, Alistair
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Martlew, Eric


Dewar, Donald
Maxton, John


Dixon, Don
Meacher, Michael


Dobson, Frank
Meale, Alan


Doran, Frank
Michael, Alun


Duffy, A. E. P.
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Eadie, Alexander
Mitchell, Austin (G'f Grimsby)


Eastham, Ken
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Fatchett, Derek
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Faulds, Andrew
Morgan, Rhodri


Flannery, Martin
Morley, Elliott


Flynn, Paul
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Foster, Derek
Mullin, Chris


Foulkes, George
Murphy, Paul


Fraser, John
Nellist, Dave


Fyfe, Maria
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Galbraith, Sam
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Galloway, George
Paisley, Rev Ian


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Patchett, Terry


George, Bruce
Pendry, Tom


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Pike, Peter L.


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Gould, Bryan
Prescott, John


Graham, Thomas
Primarolo, Dawn


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Radice, Giles


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Grocott, Bruce
Reid, Dr John






Richardson, Jo
Strang, Gavin


Roberts, Allan (Bootle)
Straw, Jack


Robertson, George
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Robinson, Geoffrey
Turner, Dennis


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Vaz, Keith


Rooker, Jeff
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wall, Pat


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Walley, Joan


Rowlands, Ted
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Ruddock, Joan
Wareing, Robert N.


Sedgemore, Brian
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Sheerman, Barry
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wigley, Dafydd


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Short, Clare
Wilson, Brian


Skinner, Dennis
Winnick, David


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Smith, C. (IsI'ton &amp; F'bury)
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Wray, Jimmy


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Snape, Peter


Soley, Clive
Tellers for the Noes:


Spearing, Nigel
Mr. Martyn Jones and


Steinberg, Gerry
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — Rate Support Grant (Sandwell)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Durant.]

Mr. Peter Snape: The measure of the importance that those of us who have the honour to represent constituencies which include parts of the borough to Sandwell place on this debate is reflected by the fact that the four Members of Parliament for the borough—including yourself, Madam Deputy Speaker—are present. If, as I hope, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) succeeds in catching your eye, he will let the House know about the problems that his constituents face in the part of the borough that he represents with such distinction.
In October last year, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities circulated a report based, it was suggested, on the Department of the Environment forecast of the likely block grant distribution for 1989–90. The AMA produced the report because it thought that it would help local authorities in their rate planning for 1989–90 and that it would allow them to make a more considered response to the Secretary of State's proposals. The report made allowance for community charge preparation costs and for the transfer of higher education establishments from the control and funding of local authorities to polytechnics and to the colleges providing those functions in April 1989. Grant implications were shown for a range of grant distribution arrangements throughout the country, and Sandwell's block grant estimate was raised from £55·7 million to £58·3 million.
In November 1988, the Secretary of State issued full details of his proposals for the 1989–90 rate support grant settlement. From this report, Sandwell's grant was calculated on a relevant amount of expenditure amounting to £177·5 million, including an allowance for community charge preparation costs of only £295,000. However, Sandwell's total revenue costs next year for community charge preparation will amount to £2·3 million.
The Department also announced a reduction of £2·6 million in respect of the amended financing arrangements for higher education establishments, to which I have already referred. Accordingly, therefore, Sandwell's grant-related expenditure assessment was put at £172·74 million, with a block grant entitlement of only £50·8 million. On receipt of this information, the borough's councillors made strong representations to the Secretary of State and sought a meeting with him. The request for that meeting was declined.
On 19 December 1988 the Secretary of State laid a report before the House of Commons, describing the rate support grant settlement for 1989–90. It transpires from the settlement that the relevant amount of expenditure for Sandwell has been reassessed at £177·7 million. That consequently gives a slightly higher block grant entitlement for the borough of £51·06 million, which is a mere £278,000 more than the figure for the current year. The base budget for Sandwell for 1989–90 is £188·3 million, which allows for no growth whatsoever. In the light of the block grant settlement, and even if Sandwell uses all its balance of £22 million or so, the borough's rate will still have to rise by 12·7 per cent for services to be maintained at their present level.
Clearly, as a local authority that is attempting to care for its community and to meet the severe level of deprivation faced in the borough, a standstill budget is unlikely to be acceptable. The budget requires some growth, and the council has determined that it will try to allocate that to the areas of greatest need. It has also put in train a major efficiency exercies to try to make some savings in the borough. Nevertheless, the consequence of the grant allocation for Sandwell is that instead of the anticipated grant of between £55·7 million and £58·3 million it faces a block grant of £51 million£that is, £4 million to £7 million less than expected when the figures were first prepared last year.
Over the years, the borough of Sandwell has been a consistently low-rated authority. In the current financial year, the borough has a rate in the pound of 251·50p compared to the average of all metropolitan authorities of 288·05p, so the difference is 36·55p. In each of the past six financial years, the rate in Sandwell has been significantly lower than the average for all metropolitan district authorities, and that has produced substantial savings for all domestic and industrial ratepayers. To give an example, the saving amounts to £10 million over a period when grants from central Government to local authorities have been consistently reduced.
The settlement already announced would mean that Sandwell would need a heavy rate increase merely to stand still. That settlement, and the rate increase that I have already mentioned, would include throwing in all the borough's revenue balances to keep the rate increase at that level. Bearing in mind the Government's devotion to so-called sensible financial policies for local authorities, I hope that the Minister will agree with me that no organisation with a £200 million revenue budget can operate without balances.
The facts are even worse than I have outlined. Sandwell is in the top five metropolitan authorities in terms of deprivation—a fact readily demonstrated by district audit figures and many other sources. The recent district audit service report on the borough said in the summary:
The deprivation of the borough and its population is self-evident. Research showed that it was if anything even worse than it appears.
On expenditure in the borough over the years the report said:
The Council has always been a careful spender, and has built up substantial balances. Its expenditure on many heads is well below average for Metropolitan Districts, and for social services it is below even the allowance for them in the block grant calculations. Social services and housing appear to be the Council's most daunting challenges.
The Government set up that audit, but far from helping the borough of Sandwell in the the two areas mentioned in the report, the Government have considerably reduced the housing allocation entitlement in the next financial year. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West will say something about the social services and the growth that is needed there.[Interruption.]
Although unemployment has been falling slightly faster in the borough than in England and Wales as a whole, we still have one of the highest proportions of unemployed people who have been out of work for more than a year.[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. Hon. Members are showing great discourtesy to the hon. Member who has the Floor, because of the noise that is going on.

Mr. Snape: I thought that Whips were traditionally silent, but that is obviously not the case in the current Administration.
Only four wards in Sandwell have unemployment rates below the national average. The average income in the borough in 1984–85, the last year for which figures are available, was only 67 per cent. of that in Great Britain as a whole. Fifty-six per cent. of Sandwell's employed earned below average incomes in 1986. The West Midlands low pay unit estimated that 40 per cent. of full-time employees were earning less than two thirds of median male earnings compared with 25 per cent. in Great Britain as a whole.
Another measure of poverty in the borough is the high proportion of households in receipt of housing benefit. As I have said earlier, the cut in housing allocation finance in the next financial year already means that the 78 per cent. of council tenants who claim housing benefit are likely to be even worse affected and 57 per cent. of private sector tenants are also poor enough to claim that benefit.
A recent university of Warwick study entitled "Local prosperity and the north-south divide" found that of 280 local labour market areas Smethwick ranked 276th and West Bromwich 240th in terms of economic performance between 1981 and 1986. Yet this is the borough that is facing swingeing rate increases. Those unfortunate enough to live in council property face a rent increase of £5 per week, which is due entirely to the financial policies of the Department of the Environment in 1989–90.
One further illustration of the shabby way in which the Government have treated this most militantly moderate of local authorities is the fact that out of budgeted expenditure of £104·4 million in the financial year 1981–82, the council's initial grant entitlement amounted to £43·1 million or 41·2 per cent. of budgeted expenditure. Without a change of heart, out of estimated budgeted expenditure of £190 million in 1989–90, Sandwell will receive only £51·06 million, or 26·8 per cent.
I make a further plea to the Minister. For years, the Government have castigated a small minority of well-publicised local authorities, most of them in this part of the world, for what they consider to be unwise and unnecessary expenditure. We in the borough of Sandwell—heavily Labour-controlled though the borough is—do not believe that the onset of global thermo-nuclear war can be prevented by hanging signs from lamp posts, and we have no obviously unnecessary expenditure. Yet the borough is to be heavily penalised under the settlement.
We all know why the Government are cutting the rate support grant for Sandwell and other boroughs and refusing to fund poll tax preparations. The Government have a big enough majority in the House to introduce the poll tax, but we believe that the Secretary of State wants to discredit the rating system so as to make the poll tax look a better prospect than it really is. It is unfair to treat a borough like Sandwell in the way that the Government seem determined to treat it. It is particularly unfair to do so having trailed views in the middle and latter part of last year which suggested that the borough's rate support grant settlement would be far higher than was eventually announced.
I appeal to the Minister to reconsider, even at this late hour. It is not just Sandwell's domestic ratepayers who face dramatic increases. The increase will also have an enormous impact on the business rate in the borough and on small businesses already struggling to cope with nine increases in interest rates in the past year. The consequences in the borough of the Department's parsimony in the rate support grant settlement will be enormous. If the Minister cannot or will not tell the four hon. Members who have the honour to represent the borough that the Department is prepared to reconsider the settlement, we shall do our utmost to ensure that the blame for the swingeing increases that all our constituents face is placed firmly where it belongs-in the laps of Ministers at the Department of the Environment.

Mr. Peter Archer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) for allowing me part of his time. I congratulate him on making available to us the opportunity to ventilate the problems that we face in Sandwell.
My hon. Friend has painted a clear picture of the problem that confronts Sandwell council—a problem not of the council's making, but imposed on it by the Government. It faces the choice of denying local services which are urgently needed, or imposing a massive rate increase—or sharing out the burden between ratepayers and those who need the service, many of whom will be the same people and thus will bear both halves of the burden.
I shall not seek to improve on the account given by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East. The figures that he gave speak for themselves. To most of us, those figures are so large that they are difficult to take in, and we would find it difficult to notice if a nought were added or left off. However, it was not an academic exercise because those figures break down into smaller sums which might have been used for specific purposes.
My hon. Friend mentioned social services in Sandwell. I have constituents who are handicapped and will remain trapped in their homes unless a ramp is constructed allowing access for a wheelchair. As the ramp has to be constructed by the council, the council holds the key to their freedom. I know many people who enjoy a totally different life because the council has constructed a ramp, a rail, a shower unit or in some cases a stair board. I am sure that my hon. Friend—or you, Madam Deputy Speaker—could produce similar examples.
All those facilities require council officials who are experts in that subject. The council do not have enough experts, so people are kept waiting—sometimes for months—and that is time out of their lives. The social services committee of Sandwell council understands the problem and wants to deal with it. It wants to provide for expenditure on the revenue account for people with disabilities of £94,000 in the next financial year and £111,700 the following year.
I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and my hon. Friends, have the same experience as I when at every advice bureau I see people whose lives are dominated by environmental problems. The environmental committee of Sandwell council wants to double expenditure on dealing with air pollution and noise. People come to us in tears because of housing conditions. The housing committee wants to increase revenue grants from £24,000 in the next

financial year to £101,000 in the following year. The education committee wants to provide four nursery nurses for special needs at a cost of £25,700 in the next financial year and £27,200 in the following year. With that increase in rates which is now contemplated, I doubt whether that money will be available. Almost certainly the council will have to make choices between those purposes.
Those are the sums into which the macro-figures quoted by my hon. Friend break down. They can all be translated into human misery or relief. If the Minister says that there is no more money and the council cannot have an increase in rate support grant, they represent part of the even larger sums with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer was dealing last year—the sums that he gave to taxpayers on high incomes. When the Government do that, this is what happens to the other half of the equation.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) on securing the debate, and the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer).I note that the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) is also present. It seems something of a Sandwell occasion, with all its Members of Parliament present—including you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East suggested—the council has made similar comments—that any local rates increase next year will be a direct result of central Government. That is not the case, and I shall explain why.
First, the hon. Member should know that the present rate support grant system is mechanistic. Ultimately, an individual authority's grant entitlement is decided not by Ministers in some arbitrary way, but by the block grant formula, which must be based on general principle. I am sure that all hon. Members would not in fact wish it to be otherwise, but I accept that the present system is over-complex and incomprehensible. That is why we are abolishing it and setting up a simpler system which will be based solely on authorities' needs. On current exemplifications, that system could bring real benefits to community charge and business rate payers in Sandwell, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, by way of lower bills. But that will not be the case if the council continues to increase its expenditure as it has done in recent years.
I shall deal with Sandwell's expenditure shortly, but I want to make it clear that, nationally, for next year's settlement, we have provided £1·1 billion or some 9 per cent. more grant in aggregate than is being paid out this year, after making allowance for the transfer of funding to the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. By any account that is a generous settlement, and it is pointless to speak of reductions in grant percentages.

Mr. Snape: I am not talking about the global figure. Will the Minister accept that the figure that has been announced for Sandwell is, in actual terms, £280,000 higher than the total block grant settlement given by the Department of the Environment in the current financial year. How, given inflation of about 7 per cent., nationally agreed pay rises and other unavoidable items of expenditure with which the borough is faced, can that extra £280,000 be stretched to meet all the other factors over which the council has no control whatever?

Mrs. Bottomley: These are complex matters. I am trying as fast as I can to explain the detail of them to the hon. Gentleman, and I am coming to precisely that point.
It is not the case, as the council and the hon. Gentleman have suggested, that Sandwell will receive less grant next year. The fact is that, after making the necessary adjustment for the effects of the changes in funding for further education, the settlement actually provides extra block grant of almost £2·9 million—6 per cent. more than it is receiving this year. What is more, our proposals for closing down the present rate support grant—now enacted in the Rate Support Grants Act 1988—mean that the council can have much greater certainty of its grant entitlement next year, because the Act provides that there is no grant penalty for spending up—a difficulty faced by Sandwell on several occasions.
Hon. Members might ask why Sandwell's increase in block grant of 6 per cent. is less than the 9 per cent. that I have mentioned. Although I was referring then to the increase in aggregate Exchequer grant, there is in fact a similar increase in block grant next year. The simple answer to hon. Gentlemen's questions, is once again the grant formula. Specifically, the council gains some £7 million grant from changes in its gross rateable value, in its population and from changes in other detailed factors in the formula; but it loses some £4 million of that potential gain because its grant-related expenditure assessment increases by less than the average, largely as a result of the use of up-to-date information on capital and other financing items.
I hope that I do not have to explain GREs to this House tonight. All I would say is that an authority's GRE is essentially our assessment of that authority's spending need, calculated on the basis of principles applicable to all authorities. Each year, we discuss proposals for improving certain elements of GREs with the local authority associations.
The system works in such a way that, even if an authority's GRE increases—as it does for Sandwell next year, by 9·6 per cent. per head—if that increase is less than the average, its share of grant falls. There is no question of any Government interference in particular cases. While, as I say, the changes next year are not all to Sandwell's benefit, it is still the case, as hon. Members have said, that its GRE is the ninth highest of any metropolitan district in the country, in recognition of the area's real needs, which the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East has so powerfully spelt out.
The result of all that is that Sandwell will receive over £51 million grant next year, or £171 per head of the population—as I have said, some 6 per cent. more than the grant paid to them for the current year.
The hon. Gentleman asked why the proportion of Sandwell's total expenditure, which is to be met by block grant, is lower than the overall figure of 43·3 per cent. nationally. I think that, once again, that shows a misunderstanding of the system, which I can sympathise with only too well. The 43·3 per cent. refers to the proportion of relevant expenditure met from aggregate exchequer grant. But AEG and relevant expenditure include many specific and supplementary grants, such as police grant, certain housing and environmental improvement grants, transport supplementary grant and many others. The proper comparison is not between AEG and

relevant expenditure but between block grant and the level of total expenditure, which is the measure used in calculating authorities' grant entitlements.
Looking at those figures, we have provided £8,840 million, or £715 million more block grant than this year. If authorities spend in line with the settlement, block grant will be 32 per cent. of their total expenditure. Sandwell's grant entitlement, which would represent 28·7 per cent., is lower than the national figure because of differences between GRE and total expenditure and the way rateable values are reflected in the current system. In short, it is less not because Government say it shall be less, but because of Sandwell's spending decisions and the way in which the formula works.
The hon. Gentleman also suggested that we are making Sandwell pay for most of the costs next year of preparing for the introduction of the community charge. Again, that is not the case. We are actually providing local government generally with £110 million for the current costs next year. This is very much in line with the independent Price Waterhouse report and other estimates. Fifty per cent. of this sum is to be met by specific grant and the remaining 50 per cent. is taken into account in the RSG settlement in the normal way. We estimate that Sandwell will receive specific grant of some £0·295 million with, as I say, the remainder reflected in its grant entitlement.
Hon. Members should also be aware that we have provided extra capital allocations of some £135 million next year. Sandwell will receive £0·72 million in addition to its allocation for this purpose of £0·158 million for the current year. Clearly, we do not accept what the hon. Gentleman and Sandwell are saying about the costs of setting up the community charge.
Returning to why it is simply wrong to suggest that Sandwell's suggested rate increase is somehow the Government's fault, I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that the rate levy is a matter for Sandwell. Clearly, this will depend to some extent on the amount of block grant the authority estimates that it will receive. Given closedown arrangements, this amount no longer depends on what the authority spends. But as I have said, Sandwell is getting 6 per cent. more grant next year, so why a rate rise of perhaps as much as 18 per cent.?
The answer lies not in the settlement nor in grant reductions for earlier years, which I understand had been fully taken into account by the council. It lies in the council's decisions on spending—not necessarily decisions this year, but certainly spending decisions at some time. It is always the case that, as expenditure increases, sooner or later the bills for ratepayers are higher.
One way for an authority to cushion ratepayers from the immediate effects of such increases is to use its general rate fund balances to finance part of its expenditure. This is a device used for a number of reasons, but perhaps often when a council believes that a high rate increase might be politically damaging. Sandwell has done just that. It took the decision to increase budgeted total expenditure this year—1988–89—by some 12 per cent. over estimated outturn for 1987–88. Not only was this a significant increase in real terms; it was also well above the average increase for local government generally, and came on top of an above average increase in the previous year.
This level of expenditure would have required a local rate increase of almost 30 per cent. in 1988–89, but that would have made its rate the highest in the west Midlands and well above the average for metropolitan districts


generally. I can understand why it chose instead to draw some £23 million from balances to keep the actual increase within single figures and to camouflage its existing spending from its ratepayers.

Mr. Snape: The Minister will concede that Sandwell's expenditure in the current financial year was entirely in accordance with the advice given by the Audit Commission, which pointed out that, particularly in areas such as housing and the social services, Sandwell in effect needed to spend more, which is just what it has done.

Mrs. Bottomley: I have little time in which to complete my remarks. Our proposals have been enacted in the Rate Support Grants Act 1988 and I can add nothing to what was said during the passage of that measure. Our proposals are the only practicable way forward. No system allows the truth to be hidden for ever. Sandwell council overspent in previous years and drew on its balances.
It was suggested that there had been difficulty in Sandwell having its representations heard. The letter from the Council arrived too late to arrange a visit, but the hon. Gentleman's representations were taken into account. My right hon. Friend had a meeting later with the West Midlands passenger transport authority on the points that it wished to raise.
As I said, no system allows the truth to be hidden for ever. An authority can hide its true level of spending, by using reserves and other means, for some time—certainly as long as the money holds out—but, if it does not curtail its spending, the bill must eventually be paid.
That is happening in Sandwell. This is why ratepayers face much higher increases next year. It has nothing to do

with the settlement, which would have provided for any rate increase to be below the level of inflation had the council rated this year for the full costs of its budgeted expenditure and decided to keep its expenditure at around the same level next year.
It is not for me to comment on the council's reasons for increasing expenditure so rapidly in recent years, so that it has moved from being 5 per cent. below GRE to 8 per cent. above. Nor can I say for certain why it has budgeted to use such large amounts of funds and reserves in recent years when, I presume, it must have been aware that this would eventually lead to significant rate increases unless it addressed the root cause—and that, as I trust I have made clear, is its spending. I am certain that hon. Members will agree there can be no real justification for an expenditure increase of over 27 per cent. in the last two years.
We have heard tonight a tale of a council attempting to hide its true spending policies from its ratepayers and electorate, but the truth will out. If Sandwell's rates go up, that is because it has spent up. Nothing I have heard tonight should persuade anyone to the contrary.
What I have heard tonight from the hon. Gentleman is that Sandwell council is determined efficiently and effectively to provide services. I hope that it will take advantage of the competitive tendering and contracting out to raise the savings that the Audit Commission has made clear—

The Motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at four minutes to Eleven o'clock.